Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to the British Transport Commission," presented by Mr. J. Stuart; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 99.]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

School Meal Charges

Mr. Bence: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what change has taken place in the number of children taking school meals, since the prices of school meals were last increased, in the county of Dunbartonshire; and what is the saving to the education authority;
(2) what change has taken place in the number of children taking school meals, in the burgh of Clydebank, since the prices of these meals were last increased; and what is the saving to the education authority.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. James Stuart): The number of children taking school dinners in February in the county as a whole was 7,267, including 1,901 in Clydebank. The corresponding figures for June are 6,036 and 1,530. The whole of the authority's net expenditure on school dinners is reimbursed and accordingly no saving to the authority results from the increase in the charges.

Mr. Bence: In view of the rising costs of essential foods and of the number of very large families in the county and in

Clydebank, does the Secretary of State not think that it would be just as well to reduce the cost of these school meals in order that nutrition may be maintained and the heavy sacrifices that parents are making be rendered unnecessary?

Mr. Stuart: The increased charge barely covers the cost of the food alone. It is, perhaps, interesting to note that in the burgh of Clydebank since April, which was after the imposition of the increase, there has been an increase in the number of those taking school meals from 1,415 to 1,530.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each school in Dundee the percentage drop in the number of school meals taken up since the increase in price.

Mr. J. Stuart: This information is not available and I should not feel justified in asking the Education Authority for it.

Mr. Manuel: Why not?

Mr. Thomson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel it is important to find out whether it is the poorest schools in the cities of this country where the biggest drop in the number of school meals is taking place?

Mr. Stuart: We are dealing with a large city with 66 schools. I can tell the hon. Member the figure for Dundee in the aggregate. In February it was 8,840, in April, 7,905, and in June, 7,958. I am glad to say there was a slight improvement of 53 between April and June.

Physiotherapy Treatment, Midlothian and Peebles

Mr. Pryde: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what provision exists to enable patients to obtain physiotherapy treatment in the counties of Midlothian and Peebles.

Mr. J. Stuart: Physiotherapy treatment needed as part of hospital care is normally provided for patients from Midlothian and Peebles at Edinburgh hospitals and associated clinics, at the hospital clinic in Peebles, or at Peel Hospital, Galashiels.

Mr. Pryde: Is the Minister aware of the great hardship which is occasioned to many people with small incomes when


they have to be transported into Edinburgh or to Peel Hospital, which sometimes entails a journey of 50 miles, when they can ill afford such an expenditure? Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that for this reason people sometimes stop visiting these hospitals and thereby occasion great delay in their recovery?

Mr. Stuart: I sympathise with the hon. Member's feeling, but this treatment for other than hospital patients is not the responsibility of hospital authorities under the National Health Service (Scotland) Act. The hospital authorities do, however, occasionally provide such treatment for a patient who is unable to travel to hospital.

Mr. Pryde: Would it not be better to build a hospital in the centre of the county of Midlothian, at, say, Dalkeith, as has already been suggested?

Mr. Stuart: That is another question, but I will consider it.

Mental Hospitals (House Stewards)

Mr. Pryde: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people are employed as house stewards in mental hospitals under the National Health Service in Scotland and what is the basis of their remuneration.

Mr. J. Stuart: There is now no recognised grade of house steward in the Hospital Service, but about 30 officers in mental hospitals are performing duties formerly associated with that designation. A range of administrative salary scales has been negotiated by the Whitley Council, and from these the hospital authorities select a scale appropriate to the responsibilities of each post.

Ambulance Service, Midlothian

Mr. Pryde: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of ambulance vehicles and personnel at present operating under the National Health Service in the county of Midlothian.

Mr. J. Stuart: There are 34 ambulances in Midlothian of which 24 are manned by 46 full-time employees of the Scottish Ambulance Service. The other 10 vehicles in the Service are run under contract by garage proprietors who supply drivers and attendants as required.

Mr. Pryde: Is the Minister aware that there are still not sufficient of these vehicles, because we find that ambulance drivers are compelled to go round the hospitals collecting patients to bring them home, sometimes to the great detriment of patients who should be transported quickly?

Mr. Stuart: I agree that they should be transported quickly, but conditions differ in different areas, and I hope that it is not entirely unsatisfactory. Apart from Edinburgh and Gorebridge, this work in Midlothian is done by contract.

Clackmannanshire Hospital (House Officer)

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the apprehension in Clackmannanshire at the danger threatening the county accidents hospital by the loss of its resident doctor; whether he is aware that the mining industry and population is developing rapidly; and whether he will give an assurance that there will be no reduction in the services provided.

Mr. J. Stuart: There is no intention of reducing the services at this hospital; but, unfortunately, advertisements for a house officer have failed to produce a candidate. I am considering with the hospital authorities what other arrangements can be made, and I will write to the right hon. Gentleman when I know the result.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the decision, or at least the apparent decision, to reduce the status of this hospital on account of the teaching status of the hospital is causing great alarm among the mining population of the area and that the mining population are, in the long run, the consumers so to speak? They are the people who have to be treated there when they have accidents, and they need an assurance that they will not have long to wait for operations nor have to be transported to Glasgow and elsewhere. Do they not need a first-class service of this kind?

Mr. Stuart: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that, while I understand his anxiety, there has been no decision to do away with the house officer post; there


is simply the difficulty of filling it. I will certainly keep the right hon. Gentleman informed.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the difficulty is due to the alteration in the curriculum of the universities and instead of having a junior student dealing with this work, which is a rather serious matter concerning physical operations, it might be advisable to have a more senior person dealing with this hospital?

Mr. Stuart: I will certainly consider what the right hon. Member has said.

Moriston Hydro-Electric Board Project

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the anticipated dates of commencement and completion for the hydro-electric works embodied in the Moriston Project, No. 23a Constructional Scheme referred to in the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board (Constructional Scheme No. 23a) Confirmation Order, 1953; the aggregate consumption of cement, bricks, steel, cast-iron and timber for all the works described in the Explanatory Memorandum, Command Paper No. 8854; and what economy in scarce materials has been achieved by revision of the Board's Constructional Scheme No. 23 (Moriston Project) compared with the revised scheme No. 23a.

Mr. J. Stuart: I am informed by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board that they hope to start construction of the works embodied in Moriston Project No. 23a (Constructional Scheme) next year and to complete them in about four to five years time. The Board estimate that the works will require 15,000 tons of cement, 2,500 tons of steel and 300 standards of timber. The use of bricks and cast iron will be negligible. An estimated saving of 25,000 tons of cement and 1,400 tons of steel will be achieved by carrying out the revised Constructional Scheme No. 23a instead of Constructional Scheme No. 23.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the anticipated load factor of the hydro-electric works embodied in the revised Moriston Project, No. 23a Constructional Scheme; what is the installed capacity in megawatts of this scheme, MWI; and the estimated

coal economy equivalent based on that load factor and a conversion rate of 1·31 lb. of coal per unit of electricity generated, generally, in accord with the average conversion rate in 1952 of British Electricity Authority power stations.

Mr. J. Stuart: I am informed by the Board that the average annual load factor of the Hydro-Electric works embodied in the revised Moriston Project is 43½ per cent. The installed capacity is 56 megawatts and the expected saving in coal at a conversion rate of 1·31 lb. of coal per unit of electricity generated will be about 125,000 tons a year.

Mr. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in view of the relatively low load factor of this project it would be advisable to give early consideration to the many recommendations made by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board that early electrification of the Perth-Inverness railway line and other railway lines should be carried out with a view to improving the utilisation of capital in these very costly schemes?

Mr. Stuart: I think my not original reply to the supplementary question would be that I should like notice of that.

Mr. Carmichael: When the right hon. Gentleman answers the next Question, will he consider the possibility of issuing a White Paper on these Questions?

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the cost per megawatt installed, £/MWI, respectively, including and excluding capital costs in respect of distribution facilities, for both the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board's Constructional Scheme No. 23 (Moriston Project) and the revised Scheme No. 23a, the latter as described in the explanatory memorandum, Command Paper 8854, accompanying S.I., No. 931, laid before Parliament on 9th June, 1953.

Mr. J. Stuart: I am informed by the Hydro-Electric Board that the estimated capital cost per megawatt installed of Constructional Scheme No. 23 is £50,000 at present day prices and that the cost of the project as amended by Constructional Scheme No. 23a is £232,000. If the cost of transmitting the power to the Board's grid is included the estimated capital costs per megawatt installed of the two schemes are £260,000 and £242,000.

Mr. John MacLeod: Now that my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has approved of Highland railways being electrified, can my right hon. Friend say that he now agrees that the previous projects of the Hydro-Electric Board were a good thing?

Mr. Stuart: I agree that if we are to electrify a railway we should have to have something with which to electrify it.

Mr. Nabarro: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those considerations are merely directed to making a somewhat poor scheme rather better?

Teacher Training Colleges (Conditions of Entry)

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many protests he has received following the publication of Scottish Education Department Circular No. 269 which seeks to lower the conditions of entry into teacher training colleges; and if he will reconsider this step.

Mr. J. Stuart: I have received eight so far. Interested parties may, however, make representations until 20th July, after which I will consider all that have been submitted.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the opposition is bound to increase after the speech of the Joint Under-Secretary this morning? Can he inform us to what extent the opposition has to go before he can consider the proposal again?

Mr. Stuart: As was stated this morning in Standing Committee, the Educational Institute of Scotland are opposed and four of the eight representations are either from the executive committee or branches of the Educational Institute, but I shall certainly consider all representations.

Mr. Hamilton: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the second part of my supplementary question; to what extent must this opposition go before he will reconsider the proposal?

Mr. Stuart: It is very difficult to speak in terms of representations of what makes a majority. I would rather confine myself to saying that I will certainly consider the representations.

Mr. Rankin: Are the protests the right hon. Gentleman received this morning among the eight?

Mr. Stuart: No, they are new ones.

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what view the Association of Headmasters of Senior and Secondary Schools and the Association of Headmistresses expressed to him in his discussion with them on the draft regulations accompanying Circular 269.

Mr. J. Stuart: I have not discussed the draft regulations with these associations, but before publishing them I had considered memoranda from both associations on the general question of the supply of teachers. The memorandum from the Association of Headmasters made no reference to the possibility of a change in the conditions of entry to the training colleges. The memorandum from the Association of Headmistresses suggested a slight relaxation and I understand that they support the proposal in the draft regulations.

Anglo-Soviet Trade Agreement

Sir R. Boothby: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will now make a statement about the negotiations for the sale of cured herring to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Mr. J. Stuart: I am glad to be able to inform the House that, following negotiations in Moscow last month, a contract for the sale of cured herring to the U.S.S.R. to the value of approximately £973,000 has been signed by Associated Herring Merchants Limited acting for the Herring Industry Board. In return, my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Food has concluded negotiations for the purchase of Russian canned salmon and crab meat to a value equivalent to that of the Herring Contract and the tinplate required. I cannot disclose the total quantity of herring involved, but I am informed by the Board that, allowing for the shortfall on last year's contract and for sales to other countries, they expect that there will be a market for about 280,000 barrels of cured herring from this year's production in Scotland and East Anglia. That is substantially more than last year's total production of 177,000 barrels.

Sir R. Boothby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this news will be received with lively satisfaction, not only throughout the herring fishing industry, but in circles far beyond it?

Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while this will give satisfaction in existing circumstances, it would be much better if the good food, herring, were more consumed at home and did not need to be exchanged for a less valuable food from abroad?

Mr. M. MacMillan: Whilst agreeing with both hon. Members that this agreement will give the greatest satisfaction everywhere, is it not rather a pity that there was not greater pressure to try to get coarse grains and timber rather than tinned crab, which at 3s. 9d. for 3 oz. is not within the reach of most people in this country? What persistent efforts have been made to get things which are really more necessary for the British consumer and economy?

Mr. Stuart: We have to negotiate the best deal we can. I would of course have welcomed such suggestions as the hon. Member has made, but those who bargained on the other side preferred to deal in crab meat.

Sir R. Boothby: May I ask my right hon. Friend to point out to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) that the herring fishing industry was built up on the export trade, and without the export trade it could not hope to survive, and that therefore this is one of the best things which has ever happened to it?

Seaweed Industry, Western Isles

Mr. M. MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent his Department is assisting, financially and otherwise, the development of local industry based on seaweed and alginic acid in the Western Isles.

Mr. J. Stuart: No direct financial assistance is given by my Department for the development of the seaweed industry in the Western Isles, but the industry in general benefits from the work of the Institute of Seaweed Research which is wholly financed by the Government out of the Development Fund.

Mr. MacMillan: While we appreciate the progress of the work of this Association, is the right hon. Gentleman aware it is felt that it is high time the Government interested themselves more directly in the development in the Islands of this industry which, according to Lord Bilsland—who is Permanent Secretary of State for Scotland nowadays—will be worth about £15 million a year when fully developed and that it would be a very considerable thing for Scotland?

Mr. Stuart: I agree with the hon. Member that there is great value in the industry, but it is still in the rather early stages.

Fishmeal Processing Factories

Mr. M. MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the plans of the Herring Industry Board for fish-meal processing at Stornoway, Isle of Lewis; and what progress has been made with production of smaller plants, suitable for meal and oil processing or part-processing in such places as the Isle of Barra.

Mr. J. Stuart: The Herring Industry Board plan to replace the chemical reduction plant at their Stornoway factory by conventional cooking and pressing plant which will recover both meal and oil from the herring. While the Board follow up any technical advances likely to contribute towards the development of plant suitable for dealing with small quantities of herring, at present they know of no plant which they would be justified in providing at places where the landings are as small and spasmodic as in the Isle of Barra.

Mr. MacMillan: While appreciating that there are some technical difficulties in the case of Barra and the smaller places, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is time the Herring Board extended their activities in the processing of oil and fishmeal at Stornoway so that there would be no need for restriction in the herring fishery? Is not it time that the plant was extended on a scale commensurate with that of the North Minch herring fishings based on the Stornoway area, which is the natural centre for such processing in Scotland.

Mr. Stuart: The Herring Board are considering these matters, and I will bring


the comments of the hon. Member to their attention.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Is any further consideration being given to the establishment of fishmeal factories at Mallig and Inverness?

Mr. Stuart: These matters have all been considered by the Herring Board. If the landings are at suitable places, it is our intention to continue it.

Lobster Industry, Western Isles

Mr. M. MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to remove the restrictions imposed in 1951 on the local fishermen regarding the catching and landing of lobsters in the Western Isles; when he intends to improve the fishery protection against foreign vessels in the island waters; and whether he will consider again the request of the Uist fishermen for a closed season.

Mr. J. Stuart: The Sea Fishing Industry (Crabs and Lobsters) Order, 1951, which prescribes the minimum size of lobsters which may be landed and prohibits the landing of berried lobsters, applies to Great Britain as a whole and there is no power to exempt any area from its operation. As regards the prevention of illegal fishing by foreign vessels, I am not satisfied that the existing patrol of the inshore waters needs to be strengthened. Nor do I consider that the institution of a close season for lobster fishing is justified.

Mr. MacMillan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this absurd Order introduced by his predecessor—and continued as absurdly by him—is really of no value or sense in an area where the common complaint is that lobsters are too big? Is he aware that if there were a closed season for fishing to allow lobsters to grow up in the areas where they are too small it might help to conserve the lobster rather than frustrate this purpose? Is he aware also that Frenchmen, Belgians and every other type of trawlermen are coming into that area and taking lobsters of all sizes, berried or unberried?

Mr. Stuart: Only two French skippers were convicted in 1951 and two in 1952. The only complaint we have received this year appears on investigation to have no substance. As to the suggestion of a close

season I understand that it would be ineffective, because I am reliably informed that lobsters carry spawn for 10 months in the year and they may be any 10 months.

Aged Sick

Mr. Carmichael: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he intends to take to provide hospital accommodation and care for the aged, sick and infirm and reduce the long waiting list which exists in many parts of Scotland.

Mr. J. Stuart: The hospital authorities are doing everything possible, within the limits of their resources and having regard to other pressing needs, to provide additional accommodation for patients in this category. I know that the local authorities for their part appreciate the need for more residential accommodation for infirm people not requiring hospital care, and also the importance of domiciliary nursing and other services in making it possible for many infirm people to remain in their own homes.

Mr. Carmichael: I accept that the local authorities are doing a marvellous job for the aged people. But can the Minister tell me what schemes are in operation? So far as I can gather, once a person gets to a certain age and is sick no one wants anything to do with him, even in hospital. Can the Minister give any information about the type of scheme operated by regional boards in the country?

Mr. Stuart: The regional boards are endeavouring to make the best use of existing facilities by adopting more intensive methods of treatment. Also, we wish to organise home aid or help so that people may be looked after in their own homes instead of occupying hospital beds.

New Schools (Planning and Design)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has taken note of the recommendation contained in the Eighth Report of the Select Committee on Estimates, that the Scottish Education Department should contain a separate branch in which architects, administrators and inspectors should work together in order to further the school building programme; and if he proposes to give effect to this recommendation.

Mr. J. Stuart: Yes, Sir. I set up in the Department last April a building development team on the lines recommended in the Select Committee's Eighth Report.

Mr. Rankin: That is very welcome news. I am sure we all hope it will speed up the school building programme in Scotland.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will urge local education authorities to establish consultative committees, on which teachers in their employment will be represented, to deal with the planning and design of new schools.

Mr. J. Stuart: In my recent circular on School Building I said that it was desirable that at various stages the education authority should arrange to obtain advice on the planning of the school from experienced teachers who have had service in the type of school to be built and, if possible, in a new school building. I think that this method of consultation is likely to be more effective than the establishment of consultative committees.

Mechanical Potato Harvester

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the one-man mechanical potato harvester exhibited at the Royal Highland Show; and whether he will investigate its use to replace child labour for the potato harvest.

Mr. J. Stuart: The machine referred to has been submitted to the British Society for Research in Agricultural Engineering for test this autumn. Until the result of the test is known I cannot say what effect the use of the machine may eventually have on the employment of school children for the potato harvest.

Mr. Thomson: When considering the results of these tests, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this matter should not be treated purely on an economic basis but in relation to the urgent need to get rid of this form of child labour in Scotland?

Mr. Stuart: It will be considered very carefully, but it is too early for me to say at the present time.

Mr. Woodburn: Can the right hon. Gentleman amplify the reason why this is to be tested by the British Society? The problem of separating clay and stones from the potatoes is peculiar to Scotland. Surely the proper place for this to be tested is at the Scottish Research Stations, or in the fields?

Mr. Stuart: I think the first thing we have to do is to wait until the potatoes are ready for research.

Captain Duncan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that farmers are just as anxious as anyone else to find a suitable machine, but those who have seen this machine at the Highland shows are not satisfied yet that this is the answer to a difficult problem?

Hospital Dental Facilities

Mr. Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Report of the Dental Advisory Committee on dental facilities in Scottish hospitals has now been considered; and what decisions have been reached.

Mr. J. Stuart: This Report, which was submitted before I took office, relates mainly to the long-term development of dental facilities in the Hospital Service. The limited resources available for hospital developments must, I am afraid, continue for some time to be devoted to more urgent matters, and accordingly decisions on specific recommendations in the Report would be premature.

Mr. Hannan: Will the right hon. Gentleman in his future consultations with the dental profession seek their cooperation in an effort not merely to provide these facilities for the patients at the hospitals but also to select a few hospitals on an area basis and make these facilities available for members of the general public who at night and at inconvenient hours require some treatment for the relief of pain?

Mr. Stuart: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall be glad to start consultations as soon as we are in a position to make some progress.

Health Centres (Standing Advisory Committees)

Mr. Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has considered the recommendation of the Scottish


Health Services Council in favour of dissolving the Standing Advisory Committee on Health Centres; and if a decision has yet been made.

Mr. J. Stuart: I have decided not to amend the Statutory Order constituting Standing Advisory Committees at the present time.

Mr. Hannan: Can the right hon. Gentleman reply to the specific point which I make about the recommendation about health centres? Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he has not accepted the recommendation?

Mr. Stuart: My reason is that they may be of value to us later, but at present I agree that they are in what one might call a state of suspended animation. I will keep the matter under review. We may desire to use their services later.

Mr. Hannan: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that it was accepted on both sides of the House that the establishment of health centres would be an integral part of the Health Service? Will he resist strenuously the suggestion made by the Medical Council on this matter and follow the good example set by Edinburgh only two or three weeks ago?

Mr. Stuart: I have said that I am not taking action at present because I feel that these bodies may be of use to us in the future.

Air-raid Shelters

Mr. Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many surface air-raid shelters still exist; and how far the work of their demolition continues or has been suspended.

Mr. J. Stuart: About 15,000 surface air-raid shelters are still in existence in Scotland. Demolition of shelters by local authorities was suspended in 1948, and is now carried out only when a shelter is a danger to public health or is structurally dangerous.

Mr. Hannan: Is the Minister aware of the increasing nuisance caused by these shelters, and will he endeavour to encourage local athorities to take action?

Mr. Stuart: There is a reason for not proceeding with demolition, as the hon. Gentleman will agree.

Oil Plant, Wick (Fish Transport)

Sir D. Robertson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why herrings, consigned by the Herring Industry Board to the oil plant on Wick Harbour, are sent by road or rail from Fraserburgh and Peterhead instead of by sea which woud be quicker and cheaper.

Mr. J. Stuart: Herring from Fraserburgh and Peterhead are sent only occasionally to the reduction factory at Wick and it is cheaper to use rail or road transport than to keep suitable ships standing by against this contingency. The use of fishing vessels is also more expensive as it involves the loss of one or two nights' fishing.

Sir D. Robertson: Is not it the case that there will be no need to keep ships standing by? Would not it be simple to wireless the fishing fleet, which is generally fishing halfway between Wick and Fraserburgh, and pay the men 5s. a cran more to discharge at Wick rather than subject the herrings to a journey of 300 miles, tearing up the roads, and at high cost to the taxpayer?

Mr. Stuart: A very small number of crans of herring have proceeded to Wick by road or rail. I really do not think that this is a matter which necessitates any change in the present practice.

Sir D. Robertson: Will my right hon. Friend look again at the information he has received, because to my certain knowledge there have been 300 road vehicles on this job on one shipment?

Mr. Stuart: That is news to me. If the hon. Member will give me the information I will certainly look into it.

Peat Processing

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what investigations he has made into peat processing by the most economical and efficient methods for private consumption; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. J. Stuart: I understand that Sir Edward Appleton's Committee have


studied all the main methods of peat production and processing, and I hope to receive their report in the near future.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if peat could be made into dry combustible blocks, which are easily transportable, it would be a great boon to the people? Does he appreciate that the Danes have gone very far in developing a machine which does this work, and can he look further into the problem?

Mr. Stuart: We are certainly inquiring into the matter.

Highland Railways (Electrification)

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has now given further consideration to the Inverness County Council resolution concerning the electrification of Highland railways.

Mr. J. Stuart: I have nothing to add to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State on 16th June.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: In view of the answers which my right hon. Friend gave to the Questions about hydro-electricity, will he give every possible support to this suggestion?

Mr. Stuart: I would rather consider the matter before giving it my support. I have not yet received the resolution referred to and, not being an expert like the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), I am not sure about the question of electrical supply.

Nursing Auxiliaries (Pay)

Mr. J. Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress is being made in the negotiations on the wages of auxiliary nurses in Scottish hospitals.

Mr. J. Stuart: There has been difficulty in the past in negotiating salaries for nursing auxiliaries because the Staff Side of the Nurses and Midwives Whitley Council were unwilling to accept responsibility for them. This difficulty has been resolved and I understand that the Staff Side submitted on 25th June a claim for increased salaries for this grade with

retrospective effect from 1st June, 1952 Negotiations on the Council can therefore now proceed.

Mr. Taylor: Can the right hon. Gentleman state the extent of the increase agreed to? For instance, can he say how much an hour it is?

Mr. Stuart: It depends on the scales. I think I am right in that, but if the hon. Member would write to me I should be glad to give him full information.

Crofting Counties (Population)

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland in which rural parishes in the crofting counties the population is estimated to be increasing.

Mr. J. Stuart: I am sending the hon. Member a note of the 26 parishes in the seven crofting counties which show an increase in population between the 1931 and 1951 census.

Mr. Grimond: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that in point of fact in nearly all the purely agricultural parishes the population is falling? Therefore, would he agree that there is a strong case for reconsidering the proposition to set up some sort of development board to the area?

Mr. Stuart: That is another question. It is true that in the landward areas of the seven counties there have been falls. I am sending the hon. Gentleman a note of the districts about which he asks.

Highland Milk Production

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that in many parts of the Highlands milk has to be imported; and if he will take steps to encourage local production.

Mr. J. Stuart: I am aware of this problem, which is being examined by the Department of Agriculture in preparation for further consultation with the Highland Panel.

Mr. Woodburn: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any further progress has been made with the idea of setting up experimental exhibition farms to show the people of the Highlands what can be done in this respect in their areas?

Mr. Stuart: I would rather let the right hon. Gentleman know later about that, if he is interested. We are investigating the problem now.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF PENSIONS

Motor-tricycles

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Pensions what progress he has made to date towards extending the existing regulations for the provision of motor-tricycles to pensioners whose legs have been amputated below, instead of above, the knee.

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Heath-coat Amory): I regret that it has not been found possible at the present time to extend the provision for the supply of motor-tricycles beyond the categories of severely disabled war pensioners referred to in my reply to the hon. and learned Member on 3rd March.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister realise that his continued refusal to grant this concession is imposing great and continuing injury on a large number of people who have suffered the loss of legs below the knee, and that the discrimination between them and those who have lost a leg above the knee is artificial and unfair? Will he do something about it?

Mr. Amory: As the hon. and learned Member knows, this very difficult problem was considered carefully by the last Government before they decided on the present category. So far I have not been able to think of a fairer line to draw without creating a good many more anomalies. If an amputee with a double amputation below the knee needs a motor-tricycle in order to get to work, he is eligible for consideration. Alternatively, if his amputations are so severe as to amount to the loss of the use of both limbs, again he can be considered. I realise that this problem invokes the utmost sympathy from us all and, though the decision may have to be an adverse one, my Ministry—or perhaps in view of the Motion on the Order Paper today I should say the Government—will not close its mind permanently to this further consideration.

Ex-Service Pensioners (National Assistance)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Pensions what action he will take, arising from the large increase in the number of disabled ex-Service pensioners now shown to be drawing National Assistance.

Mr. Amory: The increase in question is in line with the increase in the total number of persons receiving National Assistance. Our experience is that in general the need for National Assistance arises from causes other than war-disablement, but my welfare officers, who are in close touch with the National Assistance Board and employment exchanges, are always anxious to help and advise pensioners who are in any difficulty.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: As the latest figures show that there are 21,700 disabled ex-Service men drawing National Assistance, an increase of 3,200 in 12 months, does this not indicate that the country is not adequately fulfilling its debt of honour to these men?

Mr. Amory: One is very sorry that there should be any increase, but we must keep the figures in perspective. As a proportion of the total number of disabled, this is an increase of ·5 of 1 per cent., from 2 ·7 to 3·2. I believe that the majority of these men are persons whose war disability is only part of their aggregate disability, and it is usually a small part, and that makes the category extremely difficult to help more than I have been able to help it.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the figures given by my hon. and gallant Friend?

Mr. Amory: I believe the figures given by the hon. and gallant Gentleman are correct, there being an increase of 3,000 in the total, but as a proportion of the total war disabled, that is an increase of only ·5 of 1 per cent.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I hope to raise the matter again a little later, today perhaps.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Soldier's Death, Moston Hall Hospital

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the Secretary of State for War what financial loss was suffered by Private John Edward Nicholson in consequence of the court-martial sentence of 28 days' detention which was passed upon him at Chester on 18th May; and whether, in view of the findings of the inquiry into the death in Moston Hall Military Hospital of Private Donald Harrison, he will consider expunging the record in the case of Private Nicholson, grant him his discharge from the Service, and reimburse him for any financial loss he sustained in consequence of the sentence imposed upon him.

Mr. Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the later developments concerning the case of the late Private Donald Harrison, he will arrange to have expunged the record of the court-martial at Chester, on 18th May, of Private John Edward Nicholson.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head): No, Sir. This was not the right way to bring the facts to light. In any case this man went absent twice and, if his action was solely to draw attention to this case, neither the length of his absence nor its repetition can be justified on these grounds. As a result of his two periods of absence and his subsequent conviction this soldier forfeited £26 5s.

Mr. Fernyhough: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the soldier performed a public duty in bringing to light the inhuman treatment to which his colleague had been subjected, that he need not have done it, and that the matter would never have been brought to light and would never have been known if the soldier had not done what he did? Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that in the circumstances the least the War Office can do is to reimburse the man for the pay he lost while in detention?

Mr. Head: The man could have gone to his G.O.C.-in-C. or, if he had wished, written to his Member of Parliament. Assuming that he wished to do neither of those things and thought that absence

without leave was the only way of doing it, all he had to do was to go absent for one day and then demand a court-martial and it would have been his. This does not excuse two periods of absence far in excess of the minimum demanded for a court-martial.

M. P. Barracks, Kensington (Royal Cypher)

Mr. Benn: asked the Secretary of State for War on whose instructions the cypher, E VII R, at the gates of the Royal Military Police Barracks in Kensington Church Street, London, has been changed to E II R; and what steps he is taking to prevent the further mutilation of War Department property.

Mr. Benn: On a point of order. My Question should now ask why the cypher was changed to E II R, because the day after the Question was handed in it was changed back to E VII R.

Mr. Head: I hope that my reply will answer the amended Question. It is that this was unauthorised local initiative and I have issued orders for the original cypher to be put back.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Does my right hon. Friend believe that this indicates the emergence of an English National Party?

Mr. Head: I should not like to embark upon that matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Match Industry (Report)

Mr. Awbery: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will seek from the Monopolies Commission information on the amount of money that was paid to the Swedish Match Company for reducing the supply of matches to this country in 1951; and the sum that was paid to the Finnish manufacturers of match-making machinery for restricting the supply of machinery.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss): The hon. Member will find the various payments due in 1951 between the British Match Corporation and the Swedish Match Corporation set out under each clause of the Agreement in Appendix 6 of the Monopolies Commission's Report.


As regards the second part of the Question, the annual sum paid to the Finnish manufacturers of match-making machinery, as shown in paragraph 86 of the Report, is 12,500 Swedish kroner. In 1951 the sterling equivalent of this sum was £864 18s. 9d.

Mr. Awbery: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us why the Commission have left this important information out of their Report? Is he not aware that the money paid to the Swedish and Finnish manufacturers comes from the pockets of our taxpayers? How long is this to go on?

Mr. Strauss: The hon. Gentleman must have misunderstood my answer. So far from the information being left out of the Report, I quoted the two passages in the Report where he will find the figures.

Conditional Aid Schemes

Mr. Ian Harvey: asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made with the scheme for expenditure of the Counterpart of Conditional Aid Funds in accordance with the arrangements recorded in Command Paper No. 8776.

Mr. H. Strauss: I apologise for the length of the answer.
Since the publication of the White Paper, there have been extensive consultations with industrial and research organisations and the Trades Union Congress, educational institutions, and other interests, and considerable progress has been made in formulating detailed proposals under the various heads of the Foreign Secretary's Note of 25th February. The applications received considerably exceed the funds available and a careful selection is being made accordingly.
Consultations have also taken place with the Special Mission to the United Kingdom of the Mutual Security Agency. I hope that it will be possible to announce the final programme soon. A Supplementary Estimate will be presented to Parliament next month in order to give general authority for the operation of conditional aid schemes. Meanwhile, any urgent preliminary expenditure will be met as necessary from the Civil Contingencies Fund.

Mr. Bottomley: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us whether it is the Government's intention to give priority to smaller concerns, as has been suggested?

Mr. Strauss: I should not like to enter into further details. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to await the further statement that I have foreshadowed.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Coronation Crown-pieces

Mr. Mulley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the failure of banks in Sheffield to meet the demand for Coronation crown-pieces; and if he will take steps to remedy this or arrange for their distribution through the post offices or other channels.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. R. A. Butler): I am making inquiries in connection with an individual case of difficulty which the hon. Member has brought to my notice. As regards the general issue, I would refer the hon. Member to the announcement made on 3rd June, that orders for crowns would be accepted by the banks up to 30th June within a total limit of 5 million pieces. I am afraid that, in view of the very heavy demands of the Royal Mint's normal programme of work, I cannot extend the time limit beyond 30th June, or make available, at this very late stage, additional channels of distribution.

Mr. Mulley: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the careful consideration of the individual case, but would he consider extending the date in Sheffield for a short period because there may well be others who have had their orders refused by the banks and, as today is the last day, there will not be time to acquaint them of the new information?

Mr. Butler: I am extremely sorry, but owing to the circumstances which I have described I am afraid I cannot extend the date any further.

Purchase Tax (Corkscrews)

Mr. Shurmer: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what trade bodies were consulted by, and agreed with, the Commissioners of Customs and Excise in fixing Purchase Tax rates for such


borderline cases as the dog with the corkscrew tail; and why one part of the dog's anatomy results in the imposition of a 75 per cent. tax rate, while another part of the same animal should escape with a 25 per cent. imposition.

Mr. R.A. Butler: There have been general consultations with the fancy goods trade, but there was no agreement governing the treatment of this article. Under the Statutory Tax Schedule the 75 per cent. rate applies to a corkscrew which is in the form of a figure, but the 25 per cent. rate applies to corkscrews which are merely decorated with figures. Anatomical considerations do not arise.

Mr. Shurmer: As the corkscrew which bears 25 per cent. tax is useless, does not the Chancellor agree that Purchase Tax, as now interpreted, ensures that the market is flooded with unsaleable goods?

Mr. Butler: It depends how the corkscrew is conceived.

Oral Answers to Questions — CABINET (MINISTER OF EDUCATION)

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the report of the Estimates Committee, he proposes to make the Minister of Education a member of the Cabinet.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend has nothing to add to the answer which was given on his behalf last Wednesday.

Mr. Thomas: Is the Minister aware that, long before the publication of this disturbing report, opinion in the teaching profession and in local education authorities was deeply concerned with the constant denigration of the office of Minister of Education in this way? In view of the position which the right hon. Gentleman himself previously held, would he ask the Prime Minister to look at it again?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. The opinion of the Prime Minister has already been stated, but it may be some consolation to the hon. Member that I was able to do some very good work, I hope, for education without being a Member of the War Cabinet.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH KOREA AND U.N. COMMAND (CO-OPERATION)

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a further statement on the negotiations and consultations with regard to the co-operation of the Government of Korea with the United Nations Command.

The Minister of State (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): I have been asked to reply. Consultations are continuing between the United Nations Command. Mr. Walter Robertson and President Syngman Rhee. My right hon. Friend would prefer not to make a statement at present.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Building Dispute, Hove

Mr. Marlowe: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when he expects to be able to give a decision in the dispute between Miss Goodwin and the Hove Borough Council with regard to proposed building operations at 12, Hove Street, Hove.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples): The decision—in Miss Goodwin's favour—was given on 25th June.

Requisitioned Properties

Mr. Remnant: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what advice he has given recently to local authorities on the need to rehouse persons occupying requisitioned properties.

Mr. Marples: I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of a circular issued to local authorities and a copy of the Working Party's Report referred to therein. A further circular will be issued when my right hon. Friend has fully considered the Working Party's Second Report, which he has recently received.

Mr. Remnant: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the progress hitherto made in derequisitioning private dwelling-houses has been unnecessarily slow, and will he keep an eye on the matter?

Mr. Marples: My hon. Friend is not satisfied with the progress of derequisitioning, but he will not be announcing any further action until he has considered this Second Report of the Working Party.

Mrs. Braddock: Will the Parliamentary Secretary give instructions to local authorities that before they ask for derequisitioning they should make certain that the tenants are offered alternative accommodation suitable to them rather than accommodation which the local authority desires to put them into?

Mr. Marples: I will convey that to my right hon. Friend, but there is no point in derequisitioning houses without having regard to the people living in them, and it is the duty of the local authorities, perhaps, to pay slightly more attention to the rehousing of the people in derequisitioned properties in the future than they have in the past.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that most of these requisitioned houses are in blitzed towns and cities and that it is very difficult for such borough councils to find satisfactory accommodation? Will the hon. Gentleman see that no pressure is put upon the authorities to derequisition if they have no satisfactory accommodation available?

Mr. Marples: It may be difficult, but, in all equity, some sort of effort must be made.

New Tradition Houses

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government at what stage between planning and completion a house becomes a new tradition house in his Department's definition.

Mr. Marples: Houses, like skirts, acquire the old or the new look at the drawing-board stage.

Mr. Hurd: Will my hon. Friend tell us at what stage in his Department's parlance a non-traditional house becomes a new tradition house and at what stage a new tradition house becomes a traditional house?

Mr. Marples: A "new tradition" house is the new name for a non-traditional house.

Selling Price Control

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he anticipates being able, before the Houses rises for the Summer Recess, to make a statement on the control, under

the Building Materials and Housing Act, 1945, of the selling price of houses built under licence.

Mr. Marples: My right hon. Friend is sorry that he cannot add to the answer he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) on 16th June.

Brigadier Medlicott: In view of the important considerations involved, can we be assured that the statement will be made in good time so that the House can consider it before any changes have to be made effective?

Mr. Marples: Yes, I will convey that to my right hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Canterbury Development Plan

Mr. L. Thomas: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when the report of his public inquiry, held on 13th February, 1952, into the city of Canterbury's development plan is to be published.

Mr. Marples: My right hon. Friend's formal approval will he hopes be issued in the next few weeks.

Water and Drainage Schemes, Reepham

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will now make a further statement as to the progress of the preliminary work on the scheme for the provision of piped water and main drainage for the district of Reepham in the county of Norfolk.

Mr. Marples: After sinking and testing a borehole, the council are preparing the water supply scheme. My right hon. Friend cannot yet add to the information he gave on 12th May about the sewerage scheme.

Brigadier Medlicott: In view of the inter-dependence of the two parts of the scheme, can we have an assurance that approval or encouragement of the drainage scheme will be given as quickly as the approval of the water scheme?

Mr. Marples: We do not yet know the cost of the water supply proposals or the


technical details of them, but I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that sympathetic consideration—I will not go further than that—will be given to the matter.

Paper Works, Cardiff (Complaint)

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he is aware of the inconvenience caused in Victoria Park, Cardiff, by the continued emission of grit from the Ely Paper Works, Cardiff; and what action he is taking in the matter.

Mr. Marples: My right hon. Friend has had no complaints since 1949. If the hon. Member will supply him with particulars, he will have inquiries made.

Mr. Thomas: Is the Minister aware that this difficulty was largely removed in 1949 as a result of Questions and answers in this House, but that once again the people are being grievously worried? I will supply the hon. Gentleman with the information.

Oral Answers to Questions — TROOPING THE COLOUR (STANDS)

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Minister of Works the cost each year of constructing the temporary stands on the Horse Guards Parade for the ceremony of Trooping the Colour; and whether he will consider the erection of stands of a permanent character, in view of the number of occasions throughout each year when this parade ground is used for the holding of parades or for the marshalling of processions.

The Minister of Works (Sir David Eccles): The cost of erecting temporary stands is about £3,500. Permanent stands would be ugly, and would take light from many of the windows in adjoining buildings.

Brigadier Medlicott: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I cannot imagine that anything done under the aegis of his Department could be ugly?

Sir D. Eccles: I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for what he says, but I remain of the opinion that stands in the Horse Guards Parade would be exceedingly ugly.

Major Legge-Bourke: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the decision not to erect more stands for this ceremony is not due to the vested interests which those living in rooms with windows overlooking Horse Guards Parade may have?

Sir D. Eccles: I think I can give that assurance. It seems to me that the stands are very satisfactory.

Oral Answers to Questions — FISHING BOATS (FREEZING EQUIPMENT)

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what research his Department has made into the possibility of operating quick-freeze methods in fishing boats at sea.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Hugh Molson): The Torry Research Station of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research has developed methods of quick freezing part of a trawler's catch of white fish at sea. Freezing equipment, for this purpose, has been designed and tried out on the Department's own research vessel. Arrangements to try out the equipment on a distant water commercial trawler are now being discussed with the White Fish Authority and the distant water section of the fish industry.

Oral Answers to Questions — CATERING WAGES (UNLICENSED RESIDENTIAL ESTABLISHMENTS)

Mr. Awbery: asked the Minister of Labour if he has noted the report of the Catering Wages Commission for 1952, in which they urge the speedy reconstitution of the wages board for the protection of the workers engaged in unlicensed residential establishments; and what action he is taking in the matter.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Harold Watkin-son): Yes, Sir. My right hon. and learned Friend has carefully noted the views of the Catering Wages Commission on this matter. Experience has, however, clearly shown that the provision and functioning of adequate machinery to regulate wages in this complex industry is beset by


serious difficulties. From the answer which was given in the House on 5th March, the hon. Member will be aware that new arrangements are being tried on the licensed side of the industry, and we consider that the wisest course is to await the results of this development.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that a Commission twice recommended that a wages board should be set up for the unlicensed residential establishments, and will he take note of the recommendation of the Commission and give this matter further consideration?

Mr. Watkinson: We will certainly take note of that, but the hon. Member will know that the previous body made no recommendations during the whole of its life.

Mr. Woodburn: Can the hon. Gentleman say what was the official outcome of the question of the small hotels in rural districts and the Highlands which found themselves seriously prejudiced by the rules made for the big hotels in London?

Mr. Watkinson: I am afraid that is a different question.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that there was an unlicensed residential establishments wages board and that it ceased to exist on the understanding that the employers in the industry would see whether they could come to some arrangement in conjunction with the licensed residential establishments wages board? In view of the fact that nothing appears to have been done all these years, does not the hon. Gentleman think that some action should be taken to get this section of the industry on to a proper footing?

Mr. Watkinson: I did not say that no action was being taken. I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows what a difficult problem this is, and I can assure him that we are looking at it to see if we can provide satisfactory machinery. The difficulty is to find machinery which will function.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that the Commission made reference to recommendations which they made last year, and will the hon. Gentleman take note of those as well as of this year's recommendations?

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT (SITUATION)

Mr. C. S. Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a further statement about the present situation in Egypt.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Nutting): As regards the negotiations for a settlement with Egypt I have nothing to add to the statements of the Prime Minister and the Minister of State in the debate on 11th May.
On 18th June the Egyptian Prime Minister announced the abrogation of the Monarchy, the end of the Dynasty of Mohamed Ali and the setting up of the Republic of Egypt. This information was communicated to my right hon. Friend in a letter from the Egyptian Ambassador on 19th June. The letter was acknowledged on 25th June. Her Majesty's Government are thus de facto in relations with the Egyptian Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — HARDWOOD AND PLYWOOD

Mr. John Hall: asked the Minister of Materials if he will consider applications from furniture manufacturers to be added to the approved list of hardwood and plywood importers.

The Minister of Materials (Sir Arthur Salter): There is no approved list of hardwood importers. As regards plywood, import licences are issued only to purchasers from the Ministry's stocks, for the reasons given in yesterday's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). The orderly disposal of these stocks is best ensured by confining sales to plywood traders who can buy and distribute a wide range of specifications. I cannot at present, therefore, recommend the grant of import licences to furniture manufacturers or other consumers.

Mr. Hall: Do I understand from that answer that furniture manufacturers can now import hardwood direct, without going through any other channels?

Sir A. Salter: Hardwood importers can do so, subject of course to the limitation upon any importations which involve foreign exchange.

Mr. Paget: Do we take it that it is Government policy artificially to preserve the middleman's position?

Sir A. Salter: We are disposing of a diminishing stock of plywood, and in order to do that we sell it to the regular importers.

PRIVATE BILL COMMITTEES (MINUTES OF EVIDENCE)

Mr. Speaker: I have a short statement with which to trouble the House. On Thursday last, the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Nally) raised the question about how copies of the Minutes of Evidence in the Committee on Private Bills might be obtained by Members specially interested in a particular Bill. I am glad to inform the House that the Society of Parliamentary Agents have already promised to arrange for a supply of copies of these Minutes of Evidence. They suggest that any Member whose constituents may be concerned with the provisions of a Bill should give notice in the Private Bill Office of the number of copies required before the first day on which the Committee sits. No charge will be made for these copies unless a large number of copies is required. I am sure that hon. Members will refrain from making any unreasonable demand in view of the ready agreement of the Society of Parliamentary Agents to the suggestion which I made tentatively last Thursday.

Mr. Nally: I am most obliged, Sir, that you, at very short notice, should have taken certain steps, resulting in the statement which you made to us. There are one or two subsidiary points arising from your Ruling upon which I would like your guidance. Hitherto, apart from the case which I raised with you, there have been no complaints, for the very simple reason that Members of Parliament were able to obtain copies of these Minutes of Evidence and, automatically, the local authorities with which they were primarily concerned were debited with a fee, which I understand is £2 in the normal case. The only reason I had cause to raise the matter was that in the matter of the Bill with which I was concerned not enough copies had been printed, and my objection was to being told that I could borrow copies, without any guarantee of being able to retain them for my own use.
My second point is this: Yesterday we had two most important Private Bills before the House. One affected the Cheshire County Council and the other the Berkshire County Council. Normally, if too many copies are asked for, a charge may have to be made. Who will make this charge? Who will decide whether the charge is proper, and how is it allocated? In the case of the Cheshire County Council Bill, which is heard upstairs, I would assume that every Member, irrespective of party, inside the County of Cheshire is entitled, as of right—always subject to giving notice—to a copy of that Bill without the local authority—the Cheshire County Council, the parish council or the rural council—subsequently being charged for the copies supplied.
Does your statement mean that, in future, on Private Bills proceedings upstairs, through the Parliamentary agents, who are a private body, any Member of Parliament giving notice will be entitled to receive copies of the proceedings directly or indirectly affecting his constituents, and that no charge will be levied against his local authority?

Mr. Wigg: As this question originally arose out of the Dudley Extension Bill, perhaps I might say that from the beginning of the proceedings in this House and the other place I had no difficulty at all in getting copies of the proceedings. I asked the town clerk for them and they were delivered to me next day. So far as I know, it is untrue to say that not enough copies were printed. I understand that at least seven copies were available from the Agents if they were applied for.

Mr. Speaker: The House will appreciate that the cost of these copies falls upon the parties and is not defrayed out of public funds. That is the reason for the reasonable stipulation in the statement I made that the number of copies required should be stated before the first day on which the Committee sits. The Agents are anxious not to print more copies than are actually necessary. The same applies to the charges. These minutes are provided by the parties, and I have no doubt at all that for one or two copies there will be no charge at all. I am sure that any charge will merely cover the cost of printing.

Orders of the Day — NEW TOWNS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.37 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is a short two-Clause Bill asking Parliament for a further £50 million on account of expenditure being incurred on the new towns. Parliament has already incurred £100 million expenditure. The 1946 Act raised £50 million, the 1952 Act a further £50 million, and this Measure is asking for a further £50 million, three instalments which make £150 million in all.
This Measure is purely a money Bill. The 1952 Measure was precisely the same. The machinery for establishing and administering the new towns was set up in principle in 1946. It might be convenient if I dealt first of all with the financial implications of the amount of money for which we are asking, and secondly made a brief progress report of a general character—brief from the point of view of time because, as I understand the position, not much time is allowed for this debate, although hon. Members on all sides of the House wish to take part in it. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will wind up and will try to answer specific questions which hon. Members raise.
There are 14 areas designated. Hon. Members, and indeed the public, will ask what the cost is finally going to be when the 14 areas are fully developed. When the 1952 Act was going through the House, I gave a rough estimate. Like all prudent politicians, I added some prudent words—I quote from HANSARD—which were:
I would not like, in future, to be bound by that estimate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT,31st March, 1952; Vol. 498, c. 1264.]
I made that qualified statement because there are many circumstances quite outside the control of the Government, so much so that an estimate becomes almost a matter of conjecture. It might be helpful if some picture were given to the

House, however inaccurate it might be and for which I take no responsibility.
The total cost in the new towns of the 14 designated areas will be about £250 million, and of the £250 million we have already sanctioned £100 million. We are now asking for a further £50 million, making £150 million in all. The expenditure to date can be divided under two heads. First, there is the expenditure to which the Government are committed, and second, the expenditure which the Government have actually incurred, that is, in cash disbursement. The Government are committed by way of contracts up to date to £87,500,000. By the end of 1953 they will be committed to an expenditure of £100 million and that exhausts the present sum which Parliament has allotted to the new towns.
The Government have spent £55 million in cash of the commitment of £87,500,000 and they will have disbursed in actual cash £100 million by the summer of 1954. If we continue at the present rate of progress, without any acceleration or deceleration, the present £50 million will last for an additional year from about today. So in 12 months' time we shall have to have a debate in the House on new towns and ask for a further £50 million, £60 million or £70 million as the Government of the day decide. The reason we ask for the money slightly earlier this year than we expected is that there has been an accelerating rhythm in the house building section of the building industry, inspired and led by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. This has meant that we have spent money and incurred commitments, translated into bricks and mortar, much more speedily than we expected.
I should like to make a brief progress report. First, we must not lose sight of the magnitude of the operations in the new towns. Most people tend to think that a new town can be started and completed in a short space of time. That is impossible. Fourteen areas have been designated, 11 in England, one in Wales and two in Scotland. Eight of the 11 in England are for the London area. The total population which we expect to house in the new towns when they are completed is 480,000.
I should like to present to the House progress reports on houses, industry.


shops, offices and community centres. There are some schools of thought who consider that houses and schools which are started are the criterion of progress made. I belong to another school of thought, because I think that a house or a school is not much use until it is completed. So I deal here only with completed houses.
Up to the end of 1950, that is, from the passing of the 1946 Act and the commencement of operations, in possibly 1948, we had completed 592 houses. In 1951 we completed 2,534 houses. In 1952 the number was 5,852 houses and in the first five months of this year it has been 3,176 houses. It has always been a forward rate and the total of houses completed to date is 12,154. The peak will be reached in about two years' time when it is hoped to be building at the rate of 13,000 houses a year, of which 10,000 will be in the eight towns which are being built to serve the London area.
Allegations have been made that in the new towns there is low density planning which is wasting valuable land, some of it agricultural land. That is not so, because the new towns as a whole are planning at least 13 houses to the acre and in many cases the current proposals are more than that figure. Whilst it may be said that perhaps in the early stages the new towns were designing and constructing houses on a rather extravagant basis, it can no longer be said that that is the case.
I turn now to industry. The aim and policy of the Government are to see that in the new towns there is a balanced programme and a balanced community. Hon. Members may ask what we mean by a balanced community. It means that the people who live in the new towns are balanced by class, which may be by income groups or occupations, that they should be a mixed community, and that industry must be introduced into the new towns to match the progress that is being made in houses. It would be folly and a failure on the part of the Government if they were to make these new towns into dormitories for London where people would live but would come to London to work. It may be desirable that some inhabitants, such as solicitors and accountants and other members of the professional class, should commute, but generally speaking it is desirable that

facilities should be provided for the majority of the population to work and live in the new towns.
Up to the end of May, 1953, there has been provided 1,236,000 square feet for factory space, and work has been provided for 6,018 employees. We have under construction at the present time an area of 1,351,000 square feet which will pro-vide for 6,859 employees. So we have under construction now a programme which will more than double the space for factories which we have at present. What is even more important is that the sites available for factories are serviced for sewers, water and foundations and have access roads—which are most important to factories. That means that factory building can proceed at an accelerating rhythm compared with the past.
Even so, it may be asked, quite rightly how this matches with what the new towns want. One must be quite frank and say that the flow of industry into the new towns is not satisfactory, except in two cases, and I appeal to industrialists to investigate thoroughly the advantages that may accrue to them in the new towns. First, the workers are well housed in a satisfactory community. Second, the factory may well be financed by the Development Corporation and a short lease or a long lease, according to the negotiations, may be granted to the industry which comes to the new town. Third, these industries may find that they have a nucleus of good, efficient workers waiting for them.
I see that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) is in his place. He knows that in Easington there are a number of women workers who could well be employed in a factory in Peterlee. It may be that some industrialist who could use the nimble fingers and skilful labour which the ladies of Easington can provide might consider going to Peterlee to see whether he could take advantage of the opportunities offered there. I appeal to industrialists to explore the possibility of taking factories to these new towns.

Mr. E. Shinwell: I am very grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for his observations, but is he aware that we have been pressing the Board of Trade on this matter for some considerable time, with no effective result?

Mr. Marples: The Board of Trade are not industrialists and unless an industrialist really wants to go to a new town no Government Department will force him to go there. The object of my appeal is to inspire the chap who is to go there to produce the goods.

Mr. J. A. Sparks: In some cases the Board of Trade have refused to issue certificates to firms which want to go there.

Mr. Marples: If the hon. Member will send me details of any refusals made in respect of Peterlee, I shall go into them.

Mr. Hugh Dalton: As one who was once President of the Board of Trade and who had something to do with these affairs, I would ask the Minister not to under-estimate what the Board of Trade can do in influencing industrialists, in conversations and in other ways. They have often been most helpful in these matters. I had a lot to do with the case of Easington when I was in the Department which I held recently, and in that and one or two other cases the Board of Trade have not been very alert to the requirements. I hope, therefore, that a certain amount of interdepartmental prodding may take place from the hon. Gentleman's Department to the Board of Trade.

Mr. Marples: It is a question of interdepartmental co-operation rather than prodding. However, I shall bear in mind the wise words of the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), who has occupied many offices with distinction and has a great knowledge of these affairs.
I wish to make a wider appeal. I want the industrialists to explore the possibilities of going to the new towns and to apply for certificates, and then bring to bear on the Government all the pressure they can. The initiative and inspiration must come from the industrialists. We have not been unsuccessful in getting factories in the new towns, but at the same time we have not been frightfully successful. I should not like to claim the credit for what is being done. We are not satisfied; neither are we complacent.
Turning to the question of shops, there has been some criticism in another place about the number provided. It is very

difficult to generalise about shops, because each new town is different. Some have all the facilities there already, having been built round an existing town; some new towns are quite inadequate, and others are completely new town centres. They do not conform to a general pattern, and it is not possible to generalise on this question. It is possible to particularise in certain cases, however, and if any hon. Member has a particular complaint and brings it forward today, my right hon. and gallant Friend will deal with it when he speaks.
At the end of May we had 83 shops completed and 126 under construction. The provision of new shops is advancing rapidly. Not very much attention has been paid to the question of offices in new towns. My right hon. Friend believes that not only factories but large commercial offices are necessary, because that, more than anything, will provide the mixed community of industrial and office workers, which is most desirable. So far, we have provided only 28,750 square feet of office space, but if the economic recovery under my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer continues the Government intend to drive forward with their plans for inducing industrialists and commercial undertakings to take their head offices to the rather more agreeable surroundings of the new towns, away from the congested surroundings of London and the conurbations that we are trying to relieve by building the new towns.
With regard to churches, my right hon. Friend has seen many of the clergy, who have made representations to him that not sufficient places of worship are being provided in the new towns. One church has been completed so far, but there are another nine under construction. Two church halls are under construction, and we hope to start further ones shortly.
From churches I turn to public houses. I hope I have the order of sequence correct. At any rate, it will meet with the approval of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson). In this connection I should like to depart from my own speech to read from the prepared official brief of the Department. As the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) knows, on these occasions the Department prepare an official brief.


Looking through it recently I found these words in regard to public houses:
Incoming populations in new towns must have public houses.
That is the first sentence in the brief, and I include it in my speech.

Mr. G. Lindgren: What sort of public houses?

Mr. Marples: I presume the hon. Member is asking whether they should be tied or not tied. Two or three brewers have combined together to see that they are not tied to a particular brand of beer. It is always unwise to accept official briefs without looking at them carefully. There was the occasion when a Parliamentary Secretary in another place was sent an official brief. He read it out word for word, even including the last sentence, which said:
It is not much of an argument, I am afraid, but it ought to be good enough to convince their Lordships' House.
I shall not make that mistake. Three public houses have been completed, all in new towns which are designed to relieve the pressure on the London area.

Mr. Dalton: Which three towns?

Mr. Marples: Harlow, Hemel Hempstead and Stevenage. The right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland now knows where to go when he is on his walking tours.

Mr. Dalton: When are they going to be completed in County Durham, either in Peterlee, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Easing-ton (Mr. Shinwell), or in Aycliffe, which is nearly in mine?

Mr. Marples: I am not able to answer that question without notice, but I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Shinwell: I understand they are getting along very well.

Mr. Marples: They have not yet obtained licences, so I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has not yet taken intoxicating liquor in that new town.
With regard to schools, nine new ones have been completed, including one technical school, and 17 schools are under construction. Here again, it is the number of completed schools that count, and we must try to press on to complete

the 17 under construction. If we start any more we must make sure that we have a balanced programme.
I want to say a word about community facilities. It is necessary to create a spirit in these new towns. It is much easier to develop building work and houses round an existing town than to create an entirely new town, where there is no nucleus; no rateable value, no church, no shopping centre, and no real spirit. My right hon. Friend's view is that we must provide community centres, where people can get together for dances, concerts, whist drives and the affairs which make up the life of a town. My right hon. Friend is firmly of the belief that local community associations should inspire this community spirit and get assistance by way of a capital grant from the Ministry of Education.
In all the community centres I have seen, both here and abroad, the flourishing ones are those where the people themselves have played an important part in their creation. They feel that they are part of the show and not that it has been imposed upon them by an hierarchy or a remote organisation. In some cases we are providing, in addition, an adult wing to secondary schools. With regard to these community centres, in 10 of the 12 new towns—excluding the two new towns in Scotland—a start has been made or is soon to be made.
At Harlow, for example, they have adopted the old vicarage and added a hall to it. The community centre there is flourishing to a greater degree than I had expected. In addition, they have placed strategically—from the geographical point of view—small buildings, which are called tenants' common rooms. I do not like the term, but they are small buildings where the tenants of a particular locality can get together and mix freely, as they do.
Playing fields are in the same category as community centres; they are coming along, but not at the rate which we should like to see. I am afraid that playing fields and public parks must be the last of the things in a new town.

Mr. Dalton: Why?

Mr. Marples: It is sometimes not easy to do these things. At the moment the emphasis is on housing. People say


bring forward the factories, but that is not easy, because once we start erecting the factories faster, we find they cannot go ahead without houses. Thus, what must first be provided in the new towns are houses where, for instance, the building labour force can live. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that if it is possible it should be a balanced programme in which everything is level. In theory that is a good thing but in practice it is not so easy to accomplish.
We have been asked whether there should be more new towns. Do the Government propose to have more new towns? The Government think, first of all, that we ought not to bite off more than we can chew. They think it would be very much better if we first made a good job of the existing new towns before we embarked on any new ventures. Secondly, the Government have in mind that there is now an alternative available which was not available when the 1946 Bill was put on to the Statute Book—and that is the expanded town technique. This does not involve setting up ad hoc bodies which are outside the local government structure.
Unfortunately there has been some friction in the past because Development Corporations are accountable only to the Minister and not to the electorate. They need take little or no heed of what the local authorities say, although in practice they have tried to co-operate. In some cases there has been friction, unfortunately, although that friction has died down.
The Government therefore take the view, first, that we must make a good job of the existing new towns to see how they go before we embark on any further new towns. Secondly, we must try the expanded town technique first and expand suitable towns where there is an existing community life and existing centre. Thirdly, we should not overload the programme. It takes a long time to build these towns and it is quite easy to start a project of any sort but sometimes very difficult to finish it. It is easy to spread our efforts too thinly on the ground with the result that technically we work most inefficiently.

Mr. Dalton: When I left the Ministry we had not decided on a new town at

Congleton in Cheshire, but plans for it were very far advanced and a number of local authorities, notably the Manchester City Council, were taking a keen interest in it. Could the Minister give us a progress report on that? Has the idea of a new town at Congleton been completely abandoned or is it to be treated as an expanded town?

Mr. Marples: The answer to that is very short. First of all, my right hon. Friend is still considering the question of Manchester, where they are very short of building land. Secondly, certain possibly delicate negotiations are now proceeding. While I would not say that that project has been abandoned, I am giving the general principle over the field of new towns, which is that except in possibly the most urgent cases, my right hon. Friend is of the view that we ought first to try the expanded town technique before we go ahead with more new towns.

Mr. Desmond Donnelly: The question of expanded towns is very relevant to how many new towns we have. Can the Minister say whether any progress has been made in selecting areas as receiving areas for de-centralisation from bigger cities?

Mr. Marples: Nothing has yet been settled, but the various officials of the L.C.C., whom I have met lately, tell me that they have the greatest hopes of the expanded town technique and are conducting negotiations in many places. I think they attach at least as much importance to this technique as to the new town procedure—possibly more importance.
My speech has been longer than I had hoped and there is not much time for hon. Members on both sides of the House to take part in the debate, but my right hon. Friend has asked me to say that he would welcome constructive suggestions from any part of the House on the way the new towns are going. He himself has visited every new town and, under his instructions, I have visited most of them but not all. We have tried our best to make them a success and we will continue to do so. The project was started by the party opposite, and it is our duty to complete it as quickly and as efficiently as possible. My right hon. Friend has asked me to commend the Bill to the House.

4.6 p.m.

Mr. G. Lindgren: In my opinion the time is long overdue when we should have a full-dress debate in the House on the progress in new towns. Under the last Government, because of pressure of business from both sides, we did not have a debate on new towns, nor have we had one since this Government took power; and I understand that the brevity of today's debate is on the understanding that comparatively shortly, by arrangement through the usual channels, we are to have a debate on the general progress in new towns.
As the Parliamentary Secretary said, this debate will be short in order to facilitate today's business. That brevity ought in no way to prevent one from appreciating that the new town experiment has been a tremendous success. From what I regard as a number of ill-informed circles, there has been an attempt to discredit new towns and new town development, but in my opinion this development has been a huge success. Like every other piece of good work, there are some things in it which could be improved.
I refer the House to the excellent letter in "The Times" today from Sir Thomas Bennett replying to what, for "The Times," was rather an ill-informed leading article some days ago. Had we more time I would have dealt with some of the points which Sir Thomas has made, but at least I should like to take this opportunity of saying to Sir Thomas Bennett and the other chairmen of the New Town Corporations that this House and the country are indebted for a very fine piece of work in developing a wide range of different types of town.
They have developed such towns as Basildon, which was clearing up a mess from a long period; a completely new town in virgin land, like Harlow; almost a company town, like Corby; and a very excellent experiment of providing good facilities and good living conditions for miners in Durham, to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred, at Peterlee. They have done an excellent job over a wide range of towns with comparatively little experience to follow.
We appreciate the work of those chairmen and, particularly, that of Sir Thomas Bennett. I understand that he is giving up the work at Stevenage, Which he

undertook at the request of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), very much against his own wishes and very much to the detriment of his own good health, at a difficult time. He took it on in addition to the excellent work he was doing at Crawley, and that was a fine piece of public-spirited work. My right hon. Friend and I, and I am certain the present Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary, are very grateful to Sir Thomas and hope that he will get back to his full health in a very short time.
I said that the new towns were an experiment, but perhaps that was not altogether the right word, because earlier experiments were carried out by those who developed Letchworth and Welwyn. Whenever anyone is engaged in experimental work, mistakes are made. Letchworth made a number of mistakes which we tried to correct when we came to develop Welwyn, and at Welwyn we thought of some mistakes which had not occurred to Letchworth. When we came to the New Towns Act, 1946, we tried to avoid the mistakes made at Letchworth and Welwyn, and in that Act we made some other slips which ought to be remedied. In the light of experience, those changes should be made.
One of them arises from costs. It is undoubtedly true that in new towns rents are high. I am not one of those who complain against the payment of a correct and full rent for accommodation available. When I was Parliamentary Secretary and visited the new towns, I observed that the people living in them, in the pure air, with green fields around them, and close to their work, were fully satisfied because of the facilities, although they were paying higher rents than they had been previously. The only query they had was about what would happen if we returned to the days of unemployment, and to the difficulties consequent upon it that were so common in working-class life.
At the present time, because of the Government's actions and policy, the costs are rising quite steeply. It is not only a question of the rents as such. I have heard comparisons made, which I think are unfair, between new town development and local authority development. Let us make it quite clear that a development corporation, like a Government


Department, has to carry out the Act of Parliament. It is not a criticism of the present Government—it is, perhaps, a criticism of the New Towns Act—that included in the rents in new towns of development corporation houses are factors that a local authority would not include in a rent but carry on another account.
A development corporation has no rate fund it can fall back on to meet a deficiency. Take street lighting, for instance. A local authority carries the cost of it on the lighting account. A new town development corporation, which has to work as an estate developer and a local authority as well, has to provide street lighting and all the initial arrangements for it, including lamp standards, and all the costs have to go on to the rents.
The Parliamentary Secretary referred to playing fields. They are essential in new towns where young and vigorous populations go. The people who go there are not those who are getting past their sporting days, or whose sporting activities tend to take a less vigorous form rather than a more vigorous one. The Parliamentary Secretary is a hill climber and a mountain climber. He will take to walking on the flat in a comparatively short while. He shakes his head, but we all tend as we get older to be a little more careful and not quite as vigorous in our outside activities. The populations of the new towns are young and virile, and they are child-producing groups of the population, and not only they but their youngsters want playing fields. Therefore, the development of playing fields is absolutely essential. Unless they are provided people will be deprived of facilities that many of them enjoyed in the places where they lived before, although the facilities were, perhaps, quite limited in such cities as London and Manchester.
As I was saying, many of the costs of development, such as street lighting, the roads enterting a new town, as, for example, at Harlow, are borne on the rents of the houses in the new town. Therefore, I think that the costs of parks, open spaces, recreation grounds, street lighting, roads, ought to be taken off the rents which have to be charged by a development corporation to cover its costs. As I have said, it is not the fault

of the present Government, it is the fault of the New Towns Act. In the light of our experience, I think that a slight amendment of it is called for.
The Parliamentary Secretary said almost with pride that the Government were increasing the density of the housing. I do not think that there is much to be proud of in that. After all, many of us who have been engaged in local authority work and who are Londoners are engaged in new town development in revolt against the conditions in which we had to live. The Government are urging the development corporations to develop at 16 to the acre. We were propaganding before the war, and even succeeding, in getting the housing down to 10 and 12 to the acre. Here we have the Government forcing it back to 16 to the acre. It is just not good enough. Many who go out into the new towns want gardens. As I see in the new town in which I live, and more so in the neighbouring new town at Hatfield, the gardens being provided are now so small that one could not swing a cat round in them. Not that one ought to indulge in swinging a cat round one's garden, but these gardens are very small patches, and there ought to be a decrease in the building density.
There is also a lowering in the standards of the houses, which I think is very unfortunate. I appreciate the factor of cost, but the Parliamentary Secretary referred not only to costs but to the saving of agricultural land. As to costs, good, open development in new towns is nowhere near as costly as the fantastic costs of subsidies for flat development in exiting towns. The cost of good, open development in new towns is almost infinitesimal compared with the costs of subsidies paid in London for the building of flats.
When we talk about saving agricultural land, I sometimes tend to get a little cross, because it seems to me that we get all this talk about saving agricultural land and crowding the workers up to 16 to the acre from people who live in houses surrounded by gardens of five, six, seven or eight acres, and perhaps a park, and who have, very likely, flats in town, too. I shall be a little more impressed by this talk about saving agricultural land, particularly by some agriculturists, when they themselves start to


accept living in the rather crowded conditions which they are urging on other people.
I hope the Government will give up this urge to increase the building density in new towns. They are piling up the potential development, not of slums, but of houses which it will be difficult to maintain. They are piling up difficulties against the maintenance of a good type of population in the new towns, because although people are now anxious and glad to get houses in the new towns even at the increased building density, in a few years' time, when the housing situation is easier, they will tend to move out from the new towns into more open areas and to wider spaces in which to live. This talk of saving agricultural land is, to my mind, being rather overdone by people who themselves take a rather larger amount of land for their own domestic living conditions.
The Parliamentary Secretary talked about correct or balanced development. I agree entirely with his general outline of what ought to be the simultaneous development of housing, industry, schools, and social amenities. In spite of the difficulties which they encountered in the early days, the Labour Government did very well indeed. It was not altogether a complete success because one never gets complete development on almost simultaneous lines, but in our view it was done very well indeed.
Since the present Government came into power, there has been a definite slowing down of certain of these activities. Let me take one—that of education. The Parliamentary Secretary, with great pride, referred to the technical school in the new town of Hatfield. The present Government can take no credit for that. That school was planned in 1938 and the land for it was given before the new town was designated. The de Havilland Company helped the Hertfordshire County Council to develop the technical school in association with their works at Hatfield, where the new town is now being developed in order to provide housing accommodation for the thousands of workers who are working there.
There has been a definite slowing down of school building in the new towns. I am associated in another capacity with the Hertfordshire County Council, and

we have a wonderful record of school building since the war—75 new schools since the war. In the new towns in Hertfordshire we managed to keep pace with the incoming child population, and in fact we were criticised because the education authority, in conjunction with the new town development corporation, worked so well to that end that in Welwyn and Hemel Hempstead we had vacant school places; but we have not vacant school places now.
The present Government delayed for six months the starting of even those schools which had been approved by the late Administration and which were actually ready for work to commence on their construction. They also cut the future programme by one-third. In Hertfordshire we have four new towns and two large L.C.C. estates and a large proportion of those new schools were going to be in the new towns and estates in order to deal with the incoming population and the young children which it brings with it. In Hertfordshire we are now getting to the state in which we have not only overcrowding but dangerous overcrowding, and as an authority the Hertfordshire County Council are getting very worried about what is to happen in these new towns. Therefore, I urge the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister, who is now here, to realise that schools are just as important as houses in the development of these new towns.
There has not been a drift back from the new towns. What we read in the Press about people going back is all wrong. The number who have gone back is exceedingly small. The drift back is only a small fraction of those who went back from Welwyn when we were developing it in pre-war days. That drift back will grow if educational facilities are not provided for the young population. I am proud of the fact that the worker in the factory and workshop is anxious that his children should have the opportunity of an even better education than he had. Everyone agrees with that attitude of mind. We are encouraging young people to go to the new towns and if their children are not going to get the opportunity of the education to which the parents think they are entitled and which is available to them in the towns from which they come, then the best type of that population is likely to drift back.
When we consider town centre development, we realise that again the Government have slowed down that activity. I think that we ought to place great emphasis on town centre development, shopping facilities and social activities in these new towns. If we do not get that, I am afraid that people who have been enjoying some of these facilities may tend to go back to the areas from which they came. This lack of facilities will certainly deter industrialists from going to these new towns. The industrialist wants to keep his worker. One of the problems in the early development of Welwyn and Letchworth was that we could not get industry to go there because the workers were not there. The industrialists would not come because industry was not there. Neither workers nor industry will go to these new towns unless there are social amenities, shopping facilities, playing fields and educational facilities.
I hope that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary will have a change of heart in regard to the type of slowing down which they have been doing over the past 18 months. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the question of cost. This talk of cost is sometimes overdone. On the local authority side sometimes I hear talk of the cost to the local authority of the development of new towns. As I said just now, in Hertfordshire we have four new towns and two large L.C.C. housing estates. The cost to the Hertfordshire County Council last year was £40,000. That is the actual cost to the county of the facilities which the county had to provide over and above the income which they get back on the rates levied on the properties in these new towns.
The Hertfordshire County Council is a Tory county council on which there are comparatively few members representing Labour interests, and because that county council is trying to do its job its capital expenditure this year is £3 million. The present Government put up the Bank rate from 3 per cent. to 4½ per cent. That immediately cost the Hertfordshire County Council £40,000 on a capital expenditure of £3 million. Which would we rather have—£40,000 in the pockets of the bankers or £40,000 in providing four new towns and two L.C.C. housing estates? I do not claim to be a high-falutin financier, but as a local authority

administrator, I much prefer the policy of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), who gave us an opportunity of using money at 2½ per cent., than the present Government's policy of dear money. That dear money policy has added to the cost which has to be borne in connection with these new towns.
To sum up, I should like to put the following points to the Minister. From the point of view of the 1946 Act, I think that there should be consideration given to an amendment which will facilitate the taking away from the cost of housing of a number of charges which really do not directly relate to housing itself, although they are associated with it. These I have enumerated—street lighting, parks and open spaces, recreation grounds and the cost of road developments, which are very expensive in the new towns. So far as the present Government are responsible, there should be greater development of educational facilities in the new towns, development of town centres, social facilities, and, if it is possible, the making of money cheaper to the new towns.
On that basis, because we want to facilitate the business of the House today, we eagerly give this additional money to the new towns. We are appreciative of the way in which the new town experiment has been carried on, and we will do everything we can to assist the Government in making it a still further success. We hope the Government will take notice of the criticisms which have been and will be made in this short debate.

4.31 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Cough: The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) raised our hopes in this short debate by promising to be commendably short in his remarks. I hope he will not think I am offensive, however, if I say that he was at the wicket for a longer period than our leading batsman. I propose to bat more in the Lindwall than the Lindgren tempo and wish to address my remarks to reminding the House of the original purposes of these new towns.
I think they can be put under three headings: first, that there should be dispersal from very large, densely populated areas, mainly London; secondly,


that they should eventually be self-supporting; and thirdly, that they should be what has come to be known as balanced communities. The hon. Member mentioned the excellent letter in "The Times" this morning from Sir Thomas Bennett, the Chairman of the Crawley Development Corporation, but he did not mention another very interesting letter in "The Times" yesterday from the rector of Crawley. I happen to live in the new town of Crawley, which is in my constituency, and I should like to use that new town as an example because I know a little about it. If Crawley came under the new Measure, it could be described as an expanded town. It was not voluntarily expanded as new towns can be, but was compulsorily expanded under the Act.
I want to say a word or two about the people who are not very often thought of in these debates—the inhabitants of a town which has been chosen to be turned into a new town. Before it was converted into a new town, Crawley was a small country town. It had a farming community mainly, with horticulturists, and a few small businesses and shops. The people who inhabited Crawley at that time voluntarily made a sacrifice, and I feel that their sacrifice and that of similar towns should be justified if this new town experiment is to be really successful.
The first point I want to mention is dispersal. Sir Thomas Bennett mentioned in his letter that in Crawley today there are 17 factories employing 1,480 people. In addition, there are 11 factories in course of erection, and they will employ another 1,800. Negotiations are going forward for three more factories, which will make 31 factories, 17 of which are actually working. On 31st March, 1,640 houses had been erected and were occupied. All those factories take up a great amount of space and all those houses have taken families from London. What has happened to all the factory space and houses in London vacated by people who have come to Crawley and other towns?

Mr. Sparks: I think the general answer is that those vacated places have been filled by persons coming into the area and by the extension of factories already in the locality.

Mr. Gough: That is precisely the point and I am grateful to the hon. Member; but that has not fulfilled the original object of dispersal and will not fulfil it in relation to the growing problem of London and the London County Council in dealing with what they call their overspill. Unless we address ourselves to that problem, which I know is a difficult one, I do not think that the sacrifices of the inhabitants of country towns such as Crawley will be really justified under that heading.
On the subject of their being self-supporting, at the moment the new town of Crawley is in a very difficult position, as I expect are many other new towns. It is no longer a small country town but has not yet become a completely balanced community. Therefore, no one would expect it at the moment to be self-supporting. I feel that that point should be kept in mind, and for that reason—possibly for that reason alone—we should go ahead as fast as we can in putting these new towns, Crawley in particular, on their feet, so that they will be able to pay for themselves.
The third, and possibly most important, point is the balanced community and all that it stands for. We on this side of the House are extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for having made it possible at last for people to buy their own homes in these new towns. I do not think that party politics should come into the question of new towns, but if we are to have a balanced community we have to face the fact that people who become managers, directors of companies, and so on, want to buy their own homes. Many workers also would like to buy their own homes if possible.
In his letter to "The Times" the rector of Crawley also dealt with this point. He said that unless we can get this balanced community and get those in charge of factories—managers, directors, foremen and so on—to live in the new town, leadership will not be forthcoming, and community life will be quite impossible if we do not get leadership in that sphere.
Mention has been made of education. In Crawley the local county council have done a very good job. There are many critics on the question of schools in these


towns but the difficulties of the local authorities should be put on record. The new towns have a very much younger population than towns of similar size in other parts of the country. Having a younger population, obviously they are mostly young married couples with children. We in Crawley have a great problem which I think is being very well handled.
To sum up, first, old inhabitants—farmers who have had to be dispossessed and people with shops which date back three, four, or five generations who have been forced to sell their freehold and so on—have made great sacrifices willingly and are co-operating in this great venture. But I feel that, because they co-operate in that way, there is a great responsibility imposed on the exporting areas. It really is no good enough for the exporting areas to send all these factories and people to new towns and then allow the spaces vacated to be filled by people coming into them, thus completely vitiating the essential purpose of this experiment.
Although speed is desirable in order that these new towns shall be self-supporting as soon as possible, it is most important that speed should not outrun the community life of the new towns. I agree with the hon. Member for Wellingborough about playing fields and was sorry that my hon. Friend said what he did about them. I think it most important to get playing fields, swimming pools, and so on, established as soon as we can, for if we do not get the community life operating from the beginning, it will be all the more difficult to establish it later.
In the final analysis these new towns have got to stand on their own feet and they have to have their own local government as soon as possible. It is only in that way that they can develop their civic pride and community sense which alone can justify their existence.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. J. A. Sparks: I should like to comment on one point which the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough) stressed, because I think that to some extent he has hit upon a weakness in the remedy which the New Towns Act was intended to achieve so far as exporting or congested areas are concerned. As the hon. Gentleman said, the new towns

were designed mainly to relieve congestion, both industrial and population, in our great towns and cities, and particularly in Greater London. They have to some extent achieved their valuable purpose by drawing to them people and industry which otherwise would concentrate themselves still further in the already congested areas. Therefore, the fact that we have been able to attract to the new towns a limited measure of industry and a limited number of people to that extent eases the problem.
Something more must be done, however. What is the use of exporting 1,000 people from a congested area to a new town if their accommodation is immediately to be taken by other people from outside? We find in my own locality that, although we send people out to the new towns, we merely maintain the status quo as to congestion. We have been seeking powers from the Government to control that tendency, but the Government will not give us those powers.
As for industrial concentration, there are very heavy financial commitments involved in endeavouring to control the vacated accommodation resulting from a factory or an industry going to a new town, because if a local authority took action to prevent vacated premises from being utilised by another industrial development they would have to pay to the owner the market value by way of compensation for his inability either to continue his enterprise or to let it or sell it to somebody else.
In the congested areas the cost of industrial land is very high and, indeed, it is prohibitive. It is beyond the financial ability of the local authorities to pay the heavy compensation that would be required by the owners of vacated factory premises. But sooner or later we shall have to deal with these causes which are perpetuating both industrial and population congestion, if ever we are to put our congested areas into something like order and provide better living space for the people who are there. The only way in which we can readily achieve a reduction of congestion in our congested areas is by devising means of persuading industry to leave those areas and go to the new towns. I am very much afraid that if a measure of compulsion is not exercised by somebody somewhere, we shall never solve the problem.
While, on the one hand, we complain about industrial congestion and concentration, the Board of Trade are busily engaged on granting additional certificates to intensify the industrial concentration which already exists. There should be closer co-operation between the Ministry responsible for these new towns and the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade should cease granting the volume of certificates that they are granting for the expansion and development of industry in the already congested and overcrowded areas, because unless we can de-centralise some of the industrial undertakings we shall never solve the problem of congestion and overcrowding.
Wherever the factories are there are the jobs, and wherever the jobs are there are the people coming to take those jobs. It is, therefore, essential that ways and means shall be found to encourage and give to local authorities certain powers of priority to ensure that industry is decentralised more than it has yet been to the new towns so that any space vacated by them shall not immediately be re-occupied for an industrial purpose. As I say, there are financial implications which the right hon. Gentleman should face with the Treasury, and he should secure for local authorities that financial support in order that they may reduce the industrial concentration in their areas and thereby reduce their overcrowding problem at the same time.
The Parliamentary Secretary, with just pride, referred to the number of houses already completed in the new towns—12,154—and he said that in two years we should reach a peak of roughly 13,000 houses a year being completed. The hon. Gentleman did not tell us much about the new policy of his right hon. Friend. His right hon. Friend has been going round the country advocating concentration on the building of flats, including multi-storeyed flats, in the new towns and in other parts of the country. That is really a most reactionary proposal. It is merely repeating in the new towns the problem with which we are faced in the already congested areas where we have skyscrapers shutting out the light and the air and considerably accentuating the congestion. He is proposing to repeat exactly the same thing in the new towns and the country areas. That is not at all a good proposal.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) said, the people who are going to these new towns are mostly the younger people whose lives are before them, many of whom expect to raise families. It is not fair to children to bottle them up in multi-storey flats. There must be decent living accommodation for the children if we are to hold them in the towns of their birth. What is better than a little house with a nice garden and congenial surroundings of that kind where the children can run and play to their hearts' content, instead of being bottled up in a flat rather like rabbits in a hutch?
The whole thing is fantastic, and I am more than surprised that the right hon. Gentleman if he has any real interest in housing, should go round the country retailing that most reactionary of all the Government's proposals in regard to housing. I ask the Minister who is to reply to the debate to give us some indication of what part this new development in housing, namely, the building of multi-storeyed flats, is to have in the future development of our new towns, because it is very important that we should know exactly what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind.
Again, I stress this question of interest rates. Anyone who has read the last annual reports of the corporations of the new towns will find that in almost every one stress has been laid on the additional disadvantages to the development corporations as a consequence of the rise in interest rates. The amount of money advanced by way of loan to the development corporations covers all their activities—not merely housing, but a host of other items of necessary capital expenditure—and to increase the interest rate from 3 to 4½per cent., which is an increase in the interest charge of 50 per cent., is a very heavy additional financial burden. To say that we have modified that burden by increasing the Exchequer subsidy on housing is only a part of the story, because the rents which are charged have to bear the additional cost of the increased interest rates, and the subsidy is not adequate to cover this increased cost of loans raised by the corporations.
This brings me to another very important point. The rents of houses in our new towns are far too high for the average


working man with a family to be able to afford. I believe that we have almost reached saturation point. There are cases where men have been unable to go from the congested areas to the new towns, although there have been jobs there for them, because, first of all, the rents of the houses have been far too high, and secondly—and what is of equal importance to them—their rates of pay are lower in the country than they are in London. Since wage rates in country districts are lower than those in London, and since most of the new towns are located in country districts, where wage levels are lower, it often calls for a very considerable sacrifice on the part of a working man to take his family to a new town, where he might perhaps pay twice as much rent as he did before—admittedly, the accommodation is better, but it is still a question of finance—and where his wages are lower than before.
So we are finding greater and greater difficulty in securing the transfer to the new towns of precisely those people for whom the houses in the new towns were designed, namely, those people living in overcrowded conditions and unhealthy surroundings. Of course, people with money can afford to pay the higher rents, and the hon. Gentleman who preceded me rather welcomed the idea that people can now buy their own houses in the new towns. I think we all agree that there should be proper facilities for the purchase of houses for those who are able to rehouse themselves in this way, but this development should not overshadow the essential purpose of the New Towns Act, which was to de-centralise people from the congested areas to the new towns, because most of those people cannot afford to buy houses, not having the amount of money to pay by way of deposit; and, even if they had, they would find the repayments far too heavy for them.
Therefore, it is important that the right hon. Gentleman should preserve a proper balance between those houses that are for sale and those that are to be built to rehouse workers and others from the congested areas. I am quite sure that, despite all the criticisms that we have had to offer, we will all agree that the development of new towns has been of the greatest credit to this House and the

country. Had these new towns not been provided, there is no doubt whatever that the congestion in London and our great towns and cities would be far worse than it is at the present time. Therefore, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and his friends will speed up the development of our new towns, and that he will put greater pressure upon the Board of Trade—and the key to this problem is very largely in their hands—to grant more freely certificates to those industries from congested areas which are willing and prepared to transfer to the new towns.
I feel that the right hon. Gentleman's energies will be very well spent if he can speed up the process of development in our new towns, if he can do something to bring down the rents of houses to a more reasonable level, and if he will try to persuade the Treasury—and I think the new towns have a case, apart even from that of the local authorities, for some measure of preference or priority—on the question of low-interest loans in order to speed up development. Unless we can do something to bring rents down to more reasonable levels, sooner or later we shall find that the main purpose of the New Towns Act is not being achieved.
We must be careful that, in the development of the new towns, we achieve the main purpose of this project, which was to rehouse ordinary men and women and their families now living in congested areas and in bad and overcrowded conditions. Most of these people are not receiving high wages, but just ordinary average wage rates. These people are anxious to get out into the new towns and begin a new life for themselves and their children, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make it possible for them to achieve that desirable objective so that the men and women themselves, and more particularly their children, may grow up in better surroundings to be healthier and more useful citizens of our country.

4.59 p.m.

Mr. C. N. Thornton-Kemsley: This is a very short debate and many of my hon. Friends who have special claims to speak because they represent new towns or expected new towns want to catch Mr. Speaker's eye,


so I shall be very brief. I want, in the time I have, to deal with one aspect only of this problem, namely, the great need for more buildings for community use in these rapidly expanding towns. This problem was emphasised in almost all the reports on the new towns. I do not propose to read long extracts from those reports, but some of them may be quoted as being typical of others.
In the report on Newton Aycliffe it is stated:
Apart from the small Community Centre in an ex-cow byre, provided with the Corporation's help three years ago, and now entirely inadequate for the many activities which the residents wish to pursue, the town is devoid of many of the public services and of any of the places of assembly for entertainment or for cultural and educational activities which are necessary in an urban community.
Of Basildon, it is said:
The urgent need at present is for a building where new residents can meet together for recreation and mix with the older residents.
Of Crawley, it is said:
The existing halls and buildings in Crawley which were being used to full capacity are now inadequate.
The Harlow report says:
There is an insistent demand which cannot be met for committee rooms, halls, etc., for various organisations.
Of Peterlee it is reported:
During the year the Corporation became increasingly concerned at the fact that despite our rapidly increasing population it has not yet been possible to provide a building for social activity or religious purposes.
And Stevenage
regrets the difficulty in obtaining financial approval for buildings for community use.
I do not intend to expand on that, except to say that perhaps it is natural that the emphasis during the first expanding years should be upon the building of houses and of industrial facilities.
The erection of amenity buildings is not keeping pace with the growing population. The new inhabitants in almost every case have displayed ingenuity and resource. Prefabricated huts have been made useful for every kind of purpose; they have been churches on Sundays, places for meetings of the British Legion, the Women's Institute, Boy Scouts and Girl Guides; they are used for whist drives, dances, and so on, but in many cases these are the only facilities for anything of a recreational, cultural or entertainment

nature. Greater emphasis might now be placed upon the building of community centres even at the expense of new houses.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has told us that in 10 of the new towns a start has been made, or will be made very soon, on making provision for community centres or halls. Lord Mancroft, in another place last week, indicated that licences to the order of £1½ million would be issued during the next 18 months for such buildings in new housing centres, but, as I understand, that provision was not in respect of new towns only but of housing centres wherever they might be. I doubt whether, in view of the great need, provision of that order is sufficient.
The new towns are growing rapidly. Up to 2,000 houses a year are being erected in some cases, which, in terms of population, means an increase of about 7,000 persons a year. My hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough) has already quoted from the letter in yesterday's issue of "The Times" from the rector of Crawley. I doubt whether a sufficient proportion of voluntary workers with the time, money and experience necessary to cope with the immense amount of organisation which is required to enable the social life of the new towns to keep pace with their physical development is coming forward at the present time. Naturally, the lion's share of such organisation has fallen upon the churches and other voluntary bodies. These voluntary bodies cannot, in so short a time, command the funds to meet these artificially created needs.
The new towns are a national conception. In my view, a proportion of the funds available for their growth ought to be made available to provide for the establishment of their social life. Ten days ago a meeting was held in London under the aegis of the Town and Country Planning Association, which was attended by representatives of the voluntary organisations from nearly all the new towns. That meeting came to the unanimous conclusion that much could be done administratively in two ways which I want to mention, in conclusion.
The first was this. It might be possible for the machinery of the Physical Training and Recreation Act, 1937, to be used for the making of 75 per cent. grants for


the establishment of social and community buildings and playing fields in the new towns, the development corporations being permitted to operate the Act without having to show a financial return on their expenditure. Secondly, it was thought that the local education authorities should be encouraged to use the powers given them in the Education Act, 1944, to assist in the maintenance of facilities provided in this way.
I do not press for an answer upon that point this evening, but I ask the Minister to give his consideration to the problem and see whether it is possible for help to be given for the communities in the new towns in either or both of those two ways.

5.7 p.m.

Mr. John Taylor: We have become accustomed in this House to a particular phenomenon. When a Bill like this comes before the House, it meets with general approval, but one hears nothing but criticism of the general facilities provided by the Bill. That naturally is almost inevitable, and the saving factor is that each speaker concludes his speech with a welcome to the Bill and to the new facilities which it provides. From the point of view of a resident in a new town, I want to add a few criticisms, but I hasten at the beginning to express my approval of this Measure and my appreciation of the conception of the new towns and the management and work of the development corporations.
Perhaps I may be permitted at this stage to comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Angus, North and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley). I was in agreement with practically every word he said. I should like to follow it up by referring to the public square in the town in which I live. One side of that square was very properly planned as being the site to be taken up with buildings of community interest. There was a church to be planned, a public hall and a "pub." It may be an interesting commentary that the "pub" was the first one finished, which it was last Christmas. The church is to be opened next Sunday, a little more than six months later, and the public hall will not be completed until October.
There may be some justice or some social urge in that order of priority, but the fact is that already those buildings, which seemed to be adequate at the time of planning, are now inadequate, all three of them. One of them of which we have experience is inadequate for the population, another—the church—is proving to be much too small, and we need three public halls in order to cope with the demand of growing community activities in a live, young and virile community. So there is justice in what the hon. Gentleman said. Other places have not yet provided even those elementary facilities for communal life. Communal centres, in the sense that we understand them when we use those two words, are not yet provided, so far as I know, in other new towns, and that represents a great gap in the social life of these new communities.
The hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough) mentioned the point of view of the existing communities around which new towns have been developed, in particular the new town of Crawley in his own constituency. He mentioned that the established residents of the older communities have made sacrifices and they feel that many of those sacrifices have not been repaid in the development of the new towns.
I want to put another point of view. I do not think that the sacrifices which the older residents have made have been as great as the benefits they have received. Tradesmen in the established part of the new towns have had a large increase in their trade, turnover and profits—no doubt also in their Income Tax. To them the advent of those thousands of new residents to the area has been a good thing. Indeed, the replanning of the town, the provision of new facilities, the widening and opening out of new vistas, all have been of inestimable benefit to the old part of the town and override the few disadvantages that have come to a small percentage of the older residents.
May I make a plea to the older residents not to look upon the newcomers as interlopers, not to regard them as a mass invasion from the slums of the big cities, as many of them do in a rather snobbish way, I am sorry to say, but to regard them as new neighbours, to welcome them, to join in their activities, and to realise that some of the new ideas that


are being brought into the new towns are perhaps better than the older and slower ways to which they have been accustomed for so long.
We who are new residents appreciate the point of view of people who find their quiet, orderly lives suddenly upset by this mass invasion by so many newcomers, but we would prefer them to accept it as inevitable. In the first place, most of them chose to live in those towns because the towns were within reasonable distance of a large metropolis. It is for that very reason that the new town has been so developed in the same area. We hope, therefore, that they will not continue to regard us as unjustified and unwelcome interlopers.
The continued influx of new people into a new community creates problems for the shopkeepers inasmuch as goods that are in short supply normally throughout the population are in even shorter supply in the new towns. Apparently sufficiently good arrangements have not yet been made between this Ministry and the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Fuel and Power with regard to a sufficient increase in rationed foods, in foods and goods in short supply, in coal, coke and other things of that nature. It is more difficult, therefore, in a new town than anywhere else to secure bare rations, and it is almost impossible to secure any more than the bare ration, although in many other communities that is a possibility, as we all know.
Therefore, we shall be grateful if the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend will look at that aspect of the problem to see whether it is possible not only to speed up the supply of goods in short supply to an estimated increase of the population, which I believe is now being done and which is proving to be inadequately done, but to look ahead and make still further provision for an increase per head of the population.
The same might be said about transport, both road and rail. It is a special grievance of new town residents, especially around the perimeter of London, who are used to frequent buses and underground services every few minutes, to find that the bus passes only once in a half-hour and is overcrowded at that. There is a case in practically every new town in Great Britain for a closer liaison between the development corporation, the

transport undertakings and the residents, so that their point of view as users of transport may be considered.
Everyone who has experience of new towns is aware of the great shortage of rail extensions, both electrified and steam, and of the slowness of rail communications in catching up with the extended need for rail development in those areas. It is, of course, a special problem for Members of Parliament, particularly for one who has to sit on this front bench on odd occasions and has a job to do which entails him staying here as long as the House sits, to find a lack of transport which necessitates recourse to other means of transport which we thought we had given up 30 or 40 years ago. Well, we cannot expect transport undertakings to provide special facilities for the queer and ridiculous hours of Members of Parliament.
Schools have been mentioned. In my neighbourhood unit there are two beautiful and excellent new schools, a primary school and a modern secondary school. It was a great joy to me and to my family to come from a top flat in a Glasgow tenement into the open air and surroundings of this new community, with a new and modern school within two minutes' walk for my youngest son. Yet his class in Glasgow was regarded as overcrowded with 40 pupils, whereas his class in the primary school now has over 50 in it and there is a continual influx of new pupils into every class almost daily. The school is already overcrowded and, so far as I can see, there is as yet no provision for another new school to relieve that overcrowding in a new area.
There is, therefore, a really serious problem and I want to underline the pleas made by hon. Members from both sides of the House in this debate not to regard a new town as merely a desert of houses, and not to make the same mistake as we made in earlier experiments, for example, in Becontree. Let the other facilities of a really balanced community march side by side and in step with the provision of houses in these new areas.
I have one other remark to make, and possibly this is the most important. I am not so sure that the standard of houses has not suffered very gravely within the last year in the new towns. It may be the fault of the incentive system that applies. I have heard it argued, and


I have seen it to some extent demonstrated, not only in new towns, that the incentive system encourages shoddy work. I may be on dangerous ground, but when we find that building operatives who are engaged in the building of houses are reluctant to occupy the houses which they themselves build, because they think the standards are not good enough, we ought seriously to look into it and see whether an improvement cannot be made.
I believe that those standards, in little matters of detail, in trifling, niggling and irritating economies, are having a bad effect on the builders of the houses. Their work tends to become more speedy and less carefully executed. I do not think that the contractors are giving the attention to the job or to its progress that they gave 18 months or two years ago when the concept of new towns was fresh.

Mr. Marples: As the hon. Member has alleged that the building work in new towns is in effect sub-standard, would he be kind enough to specify in what respect he thinks it is sub-standard so that the allegation may be dealt with?

Mr. Taylor: I tried to be extremely careful. I did not use the word "substandard." I was very careful to say that I had the feeling that the quality of the work had been inclined to suffer during recent months. I am not saying that it is the fault of the present Administration. I was inclined rather to blame the system of incentives. There is, however, a general feeling amongst the building employees, and certainly amongst the community that I Know best, that the work is not quite as good as it ought to be and that they are not allowed to put into it the best work that they might do. If the Parliamentary Secretary reads what I have said, he will see that I have chosen my words with some care, merely in order to draw attention to what may be a great danger. I am pleased that his reaction was such that he immediately got up and tried to pinpoint the matter, and I hope that this indicates that it will be looked at. No one will be more pleased than I shall be if the charges I have made, as guardedly as I could, prove to be exaggerated.
There has been mention of the question of rents, which undoubtedly are inclined to be high. The fact that rents

are so high is detrimental to further development. Sufficient has been said about the reasons and I will not labour the point, but I hope it has been noted by the Ministry so that an attempt may be made to bring down rents to a figure more comparable with those of similar types of housing accommodation in other new communities which are not designated as new towns.
Finally, I should like, as other hon. Members have done in their closing remarks, to pay tribute to the new town idea. To my mind, it is the most spectacular as well as the most successful and most socially beneficial piece of capital development and public extension that the country has indulged in during the post-war years. I believe that as it was excellent in conception, on the whole it has been faithfully carried out. Its future will, I believe, be to create what the original Act intended, as long as we do not draw back from those original ideals and from the conceptions which motivated us over the many years during which we have been preaching this idea. I believe that the Bill which we are discussing with such unanimity today will help towards that end.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. Græme Finlay (Mr. Epping): I am sorry that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. J. Taylor) took the line that he did towards the inhabitants already in the new town areas, because, otherwise, I agree with very much of what he said. It seems to me that the relations between town and country will not be improved by taking the sort of attitude which the hon. Member took. I do not know in which new town he lives. At any rate, I can tell him that I represent Harlow, which is the largest and most advanced new town in the country. It also happens to be very much a new town "out in the blue." That is to say, we had only a very small country town, unlike Crawley in the constituency represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough), when the town was started.
It is not at all true that there has been no hurt to the inhabitants already in the new town areas, and any reflection will convince a townsman that that is so. It is true, as the hon. Member for West Lothian said, that by reason of the great influx of population there is more room


for shopkeepers and commerce, but it does not in the least follow that the small country shopkeepers in, for example, the various areas in my constituency, will benefit by it. I will tell the hon. Member the reason.
The Harlow Development Corporation have recently made a compulsory purchase order in respect of a number of small country shopkeepers in Potter Street. The reason advanced by the development corporation is that they wish to prevent any speculation, any cashing in, on the new town and its influx of population.

Mr. J. Taylor: The example which the hon. Member is giving is hardly a general one. His new town of Harlow has been built on green fields. There was not always a community in the area around which the new town has developed. It was the other kind of new town of which I was speaking.

Mr. Finlay: I am glad that the hon. Member accepts my new town, because I can speak more for that one than for the rest. At any rate, it had a small town of 4,000 inhabitants. I assure the hon. Member that the shopkeepers, so far from benefiting, stand in danger of being deprived of their properties under compulsory purchase on terms which are not at all favourable. I am extremely worried about it and have made representations to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
In addition, the farmers have been hurt as well. I do not know whether some hon. Members opposite appreciate the difficulties which are caused to working farmers and tenant farmers by the development of the new towns. I see the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) in his place. He takes this matter in rather cavalier fashion. He seems to think that it is simply a matter of rich people, who have flats in London and country houses with a good amount of land around them, grumbling. After all, the farms exist to provide food to feed the children who will inhabit the new towns, and it is about time that some hon. Members opposite appreciated this.
I will get on to the question of densities——

Mr. Lindgren: My complaint is that in some of the new towns, because of the urge of the Government and largely because of the talk of agricultural land, we are now going back to housing and space and density conditions of building against which we revolted in the inter-war years and which even Tory Governments would not tolerate. It is a bad policy, and I am yet to be convinced that by development on a basis of good gardens which provide greenstuffs and vegetables we do not get even greater agricultural production than by the rather lax methods which some farmers use for some of their land.

Mr. Finlay: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the lax methods of some farmers. In my area they are not lax, they are very active in the promotion of agriculture. As regards the rest of the hon. Gentleman's assertion, he said that there was a lack of understanding on the part of Members on this side of the House because they probably had comfortable acres themselves and a flat in town. Leaving that assertion aside, there are genuine agricultural difficulties which anyone who reflects about the matter for a moment will appreciate.
A farm cannot be run in a convenient way to suit development by a development corporation. This development goes by fits and starts and the phasing does not go entirely smoothly, as the Parliamentary Secretary will appreciate, and it is very difficult for the farmer who is subject to a development order. He does not know, for example, how much stock he will require and how he is to equip his farm mechanically so that he is not over-committed on the one hand or in a position which represents underinvestment on the other hand. I hope that I have persuaded some hon. Members opposite that there are genuine difficulties for the farmer.
Even if one is a householder in a new town area it is also difficult. The effect of the making of the designation order has been such as to sterilise the prospective market for purchasers in the new town areas. There are, all round, a great number of difficulties for the existing inhabitants. In my constituency there are, not far from the new designated area, small villages where there is practically no sanitation and where the


water supply is not very good. The people there do not grudge the rehousing of people who come from congested areas, but they see that those people are getting a very large amount of the nation's capital expenditure. I do not think I should be doing my job as a Member for both those kinds of constituents if I let the case of one side go by default when the other side has been mentioned to such an extent.
These new towns are a tremendous achievement. They represent a great chance which I think the architects have been ready to seize. There are in my constituency excellent illustrations of modern development. Some have followed traditional lines, others have followed new modern conceptions of architecture. There are, I regret to say, some extremely bad things. Again, one is trespassing on matters of taste, but there are some very ugly things indeed. There are things which resemble nothing more than rather squat garages. One cannot describe them as anything more than that.
I hope that that kind of freakish architectural development will not be given over-full sway in these new towns because in days to come people will be looking round and saying, "What sort of places did they build in the new Elizabethan era? "It is to be hoped that, looking at the new towns of Harlow and Crawley, they will not say, "Those new Elizabethans were proud of themselves, but they did not develop in the most desirable way that they could have done."
On the whole, we are doing distinctly well there. What is being done represents a great improvement on the past. There is, as the hon. Member for West Lothian said, and as I regret, some evidence of shoddiness. I hope that not only the managers but the workmen and everybody concerned with the promotion of these new towns will realise that that is a reflection on something which sets out to be the smartest development of the country at the present time.
I am worried, as are many speakers, including the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks), about the Box and Cox game going on. The principal object of the new towns in the Home Counties at any rate is beginning to fail. Instead

of the density in London being eased it is being found that more businesses and more inhabitants move in as fast as businesses and inhabitants move out to the new towns. It goes to the whole root of the matter. It is no use pretending that we are easing the problem when this game of Box and Cox is going on. What does the Minister propose to do about it? One suggestion is that it might be possible to give some financial inducement to housing authorities to acquire the sites evacuated by industries going to new towns and use them to the best possible advantage, having regard to building density.
As regards the social consequences of what is happening in these new towns, people forget that the whole thing is so sudden. If we are to build towns of 80,000 inhabitants, which is what is to happen in Harlow and Basildon, it is an extremely large development—the most rapid development, from the planning point of view, in the history of this country. From the point of view of the inhabitants, whether they are at the receiving or at the sending end, it is a very startling business; it is difficult for both sides to get acclimatised. The new inhabitants going to the new town, where there are modern architectural conceptions, come from friendly congested areas in London and take a little time to get used to their new environment.
The hon. Member for West Lothian has just said that one finds people there grumbling because they have not got the transport facilities to convey them easily to the shopping facilities. That brings me to the question of density. Some hon. Members take the view, rather leaving out of account the economic aspects of the problem, that there should be as much room as possible round these houses. In an ideal existence that would be an excellent thing, but if a town spreads out a long way the question arises of having to travel quite a long way to the shopping centres. I meet housewives in my division who complain that it is a long way to the shops. It is very difficult to reconcile that with the desire to have spaciousness and a lot of space for gardens for the children to play in. In the new Harlow we have flats which have convenient gardens adjacent to them which are quite suitable for children to play in.
I join with those other Members who have put in a plea for all possible capital to be deployed in amenity building because, as a writer in "The Times" indicated the day before yesterday, we cannot decant great numbers of people without providing for them in a proper manner; to do so means carrying out the experiment in a one-handed manner.
I will do no more than refer to the question of ancillary services which are rather lagging behind. Anyone who is occupying a home in the new town of Harlow and the other new towns is grateful to my right hon. Friend and the Parliamentary Secretary for the way they have accelerated matters in this respect. But if one relieves those people of one great problem it may be that a number of other smaller problems occur. I find the educational problem arising rather acutely. One finds a peculiar age structure—a great number of very young persons and a great many families which are, naturally, capable of increasing.
Having said that, I wish to say one or two words on the need of the middle income groups, as they are euphemistically called. One cannot buy the freeholds of houses. Harlow Development Corporation have recently announced that they will sell the leases for 999 years. Why are they to sell leaseholds and not freeholds? I should have thought that a Government which believes in the promotion of a property-owning democracy should go the whole hog and not stop short in that way. I cannot see why the Parliamentary Secretary is so shy about having accountants and solicitors in the new towns——

Mr. Marples: I said that it would make for a better balanced and more mixed community if some professional men lived in the new towns and travelled to work outside. I think I carried the House with me in that respect.

Mr. Finlay: I misheard my hon. Friend and I was rather mystified by what I misheard. If that is the case, all well and good. We hope very much that this question of the people in the middle income groups will not remain an academic matter, but that the terms offered by the development corporations will be sufficiently attractive to get people to go to the new towns. One of the reasons people have not been attracted

to the new towns is that there has not been sufficient publicity. Arrangements have been made for six months, but no one seems to know about it.
I wonder whether it would be possible for prospective purchasers to select their own designs and to employ their own architects and builders? The question of industry has been mentioned and one wonders why some new towns are not getting all the industrial development they require. Is it because rents for houses are so high that employers do not feel they can afford them or is it because communications have not been made available? I throw out these questions because I think they go to the root of the problem. We cannot expect to attract industry without the provision of these things.
I hope that those in charge of the development corporations will not think only of catering for the inhabitants in their area, but that they will extend some sympathy to the point of view of people who happen to be living in the adjacent country.

5.42 p.m.

Mr. Frank Tomney: A remarkable thing about our debates on the new towns is that they are conducted always in such a thin House. Considering the housing problem which confronts us, one would think that hon. Members would be present in large numbers. It is all the more remarkable when we consider that the London County Council has a waiting list of a quarter of a million people. The list is divided into three categories. In category A, the most urgent, there are no fewer than 70,000 families awaiting accommodation and the London County Council is building at the rate of 12,000 houses a year. It does not need much arithmetical calculation to realise how long it will take to dispose of that waiting list.
It should not be imagined that the planning of new towns is finished. A great architectural and social programme has been arranged and on paper it would appear that all the contingencies have been catered for; but problems are being met as we go along. Each area has its own problems according to its industrial, geographical, agricultural and rateable assets, and these problems differ from town to town.
I wish to speak about Hertfordshire, which has more new towns than any other county, and two L.C.C. housing estates at Boreham Wood and Oxhey. There are 12,000 houses being built in the new towns and the original estimated cost was £300 million over 15 years with an extra grant on the special account if necessary. We have discussed the refusal of the Board of Trade in certain instances to grant a certificate for industry to move into the new towns. We have experienced this in Hertfordshire to some extent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) inferred, it is not much use moving an industry from a slum factory in London unless a closure order is made against the premises which are vacated. Unless that is done another industrialist immediately takes them over.
There have been difficulties with the Ministry of Transport about roads and with the Ministry of Works over the refusal of licences for building. One of the most alarming features is the way in which costs have risen. If, in 1948, the expenditure on a given project was £400,000, the price of the same project today would be £500,000. Due to the increase in the Bank rate—and this is where the shoe really pinches—interest charges have mounted from £12,500 to £21,000 in 1953.
With these problems piling up in a county which is primarily agricultural, one can see the effect upon the county and the penalty being placed upon the inhabitants. Even so, I know it is cheaper to have these new towns than to build expensive blocks of flats in London. In my constituency I have the greatest conglomeration of flats in London and, while they house people, one cannot say that they do any more. It costs about £10 million to £15 million more, on a comparable estimate, to build blocks of flats in London than to build such towns as Hemel Hempstead.
What we have to do is to try to tie the house rents to a true economic system which takes into account the Exchequer subsidy and the local authority subsidy. One of the great difficulties is the question of rents. It is not so much a question of industry which will either go to the new towns of its own accord or be compelled to go. The increasing weight of the burden has not been fully felt. It

has been delayed because the capital expenditure on new towns has also been delayed. The county council have not yet had to pay for any of the sites to be occupied because the price of the land has not been fixed.
When it is recalled that in Hertfordshire there is Stevenage, Hatfield, Hemel Hempstead and the other estates, it is not difficult to visualise the big bill with which the county council will be faced in the future. I know that the Minister commissioned a working party to go into this problem, but I do not know whether we can expect relief sufficient to ease the burden. I should think that under the equalisation grants with regard to rateable value, about 65 per cent. of the boroughs in the country are receiving benefit and the rest are not. There is an inclination among boroughs receiving value to disregard the people who are not and that is one of the problems which must be solved by the Ministry.
There is also the question of rateable value. The rateable value works out at £6 per head in the new towns, but in the satellite estates of Oxhey and Boreham Wood it is only £4 10s., so that the problem is becoming more difficult year by year. It is not encouraging to people who have lived in villages in Hertfordshire for years to see new towns with new schools and other amenities while their children have to occupy dilapidated schoolrooms. But that is happening, and is the cause of friction and jealousy. That problem can be overcome in time but it is with us now, and so long as we have this imperfect form of equalisation grant as applied to rates and education we shall always run into these difficulties.
If a county council has no hidden assets, then it is the one that bears the biggest burden. Some county councils and municipal boroughs have hidden assets which they can call upon, but most are well below the average. The equalisation grant as it affects education hits a county like Hertfordshire harder than most counties where new towns have been developed. The general problem is great chiefly because we were an agricultural community and we did not need to develop a rateable value on the basis of big towns. So long as both systems of rating depend upon a uniform system of valuation, I do not think that we can go


very far to solve the problem in Hertfordshire. The education grant was designed to iron out differences in rateable resources. The question is, taking it county by county and authority by authority—and they all have diverse problems—whether it ought to apply. If it did not apply in Hertfordshire, it would mean at least a 7d. rate to us.
In joining with other hon. Members in giving a general welcome to the Bill, I stress the necessity for granting as many Board of Trade licences for industry in Hertfordshire as is possible. Employment in the county is based chiefly on two industries, printing and aircraft. We do not want to be dependent only on these two. While it is right to direct industry to such places as Peterlee and the other new towns, I suggest that some should be sent to this area in view of the close proximity of London with its vast housing problem. The people of London will always want some affinity with the Metropolis. Therefore, I urge that as many certificates as possible should be granted to allow industry to develop in Hertfordshire.

5.53 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Maitland: Like the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney), I wish to draw attention to what I believe to be the crux of the new town problem, and the crux which the Government have so far evaded, namely, the provision of industry in these growing and expanding centres of population. I welcome the fact that we have at last had a statement of Government policy. I hope that when we come to a full-dress debate on the subject we shall have a clearer and fuller statement. We need to know what the Government intend to do to get industries to the new towns and, if they fail to get industries to go to them, what they intend to do with the new towns themselves.
There are cases—and, inevitably, my interests are concentrated in Scotland—where the resources of wealth are already on the spot. I cannot help but think of the new town at Glenrothes, where there are rich seams of coal. There an abundant industry is assured. But in my constituency a very different picture presents itself. It is one to which, as my right hon. and gallant Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland knows, I have directed attention frequently.
We have the difficulty that at East Kilbride, and at the majority of the new towns, industry has not appeared or has appeared only in very small and meagre quantities. In certain cases, and that at East Kilbride is one, perhaps a major industry has been induced to establish itself on the site. We are confronted with the inevitable consequences of such a development. At East Kilbride we have the danger, which cannot be merely written off by words about American orders and off-shore buying, that a big motor industry at present making aeroplane engines may perhaps not find a sufficient demand in the future.
Be that as it may, I submit that the Government in formulating their policy must make up their mind and tell us clearly what their mind is about the attraction of industry to these places. One hon. Gentleman opposite suggested earlier in the debate that industry must be forced or driven, so to speak, to the new towns. I question whether that is a wise purpose. I believe it to be dangerous in terms of the national economy, and if, for whatever reason, industry refuses to go to the new towns, what then? At East Kilbride major firms seeking as much as 3 million square feet of factory space have been to inspect the site. In the past year firms seeking as many as I million square feet have been to look. But so far—and I am speaking from memory—little more than 500,000 square feet of factory space has been taken.
I was told, in answer to a Parliamentary Question the other day—an answer for which I am profoundly grateful, because it enlightens the whole matter—that according to the industry at present available in the new town at East Kilbride it is thought that a further 3,700 houses will be necessary. But suppose that by the time these houses are built the industry, for some reason, has taken a blow. Suppose there are no subsidiary industries to help overcome an adverse trend in the trade cycle. That is the danger I see looming ahead.
We have, relatively speaking, a high cost of housing. The reason for that high cost has been adumbrated very fully this afternoon. But when that high cost stands side by side with empty factories, or factories that are slowing down—and this can happen: it is no good blinding


our eyes to it—that is the picture of a new slum. My fear is that the new towns, instead of being the brilliant symbol of the new age of enlightenment and renaissance, will be the sepulchre of our hopes and perhaps prove to be gigantic slums, more sprawling and more tumbledown than any we have so far known.
The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. J. Taylor) a little while ago in very careful phrases—he is, after all, a tenant in a new town—made reference to shoddy building standards. If either the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government or the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland wishes to have any evidence on that subject, I have a memorandum which reached me this morning, signed by 70 members of the Murray Residents Association at East Kilbride, on that very point. To deny that there is shoddy building is to turn a blind eye to the facts. To deny that development corporations, no doubt harassed by a job which is perhaps too big for some of their personalities——

Mrs. Jean Mann: Will the hon. Gentleman be specific in giving us details of where, in the new town of East Kilbride, slum conditions prevail?

Mr. Maitland: I am sure that the hon. Lady realises that I do not want to speak for too long. I am not trying to evade the issue when I say that the danger is that high-cost housing accompanied by any decline in employment may lead to slum conditions. I do not say that slum conditions exist at present in the new town of East Kilbride.
It has been argued over and over again that industry does not come to these towns because labour is not available. The hon. Lady will bear me out when I say that there is a good deal of surplus, if that is a word we dare use, a good deal of unemployed labour, in Lanarkshire today. I totted up the figures at a number of adjacent labour exchanges a little while ago. My inquiries have shown that about 5,000 workers are available now who would gladly work in East Kilbride if industry would go there. It is not a question of shortage of labour. It is because the site is unsuitable.
Whether or not any particular site is unsuitable, I submit that Government policy must be clarified on the central issue of how we are to get industry to these places and, if we do not get it, what the Government propose to do with the houses. Are they to continue to build what might degenerate into a slum or dormitory town, or to concentrate on that happy facet of Government policy adumbrated today, the expanded towns policy? I therefore hope that before we come to the full-dress debate this aspect of the problem will be seriously considered and that the Government will take note of the very serious sociological consequences which can arise from putting expensive houses where factories will not arise.

6.1 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: Something has been said specifically about some of the other new towns, so I want to add one or two words for the Parliamentary Secretary's ear, and ultimately for his right hon. Friend, about Corby.
Corby is a new town built where there was a largish town composed almost entirely of new houses when the new town itself began. These new houses were built orginally by Stewarts and Lloyds, the large iron, steel and tube making firm, which was engaged in exploiting the iron ore field of Northamptonshire. Following that, there came a substantial number of council houses. The latest development is that of the development corporation houses. The problem of the differences in rent between the tied houses of Stewarts and Lloyds, the council houses which followed them and the development corporation houses, which are now going up to the exclusion of the other two types, is exceedingly critical.
I say "to the exclusion of the other two types" because the urban district council is being forced, by the well-known difficulties about the level of rents and rates in such a town, to slow down, and, for the moment, practically to discontinue its housing programme. The development of the town is highly desirable in the national interest, for otherwise the very modern and successful steel and tube works there cannot be operated and the exploitation of the iron ore field in that part of Northamptonshire will become impossible. For that reason it is indeed


a national necessity, but it will be impossible to continue getting recruits for the works and for the exploitation to continue if the development corporation rents remain at their present high level, and the probabilities are that unless legislative action is taken they will rise rather than fall.
I say to this Government, as I would have said to any Government, that I can see no solution to the problem unless a substantial contribution is made out of public funds to put development corporation houses on the same footing, in effect, as council houses. If the Government will not face up to it, then not in the long run but in the fairly early future they will find that the industrial advantages, which are sought for the country, and the very considerable social advantages, as a result of the development of the new towns, will be frustrated by the simple question of rents.
Secondly, we have heard about the relationship between industry and new towns. In this case the industry was there first and the new town had to be put there because, otherwise, the manpower needs of the industry could not be met. So far so good. But we have had experience in other parts of the country, notably in some of the L.C.C. estates, such as those in connection with the Ford works, at Dagenham, of the risk that one invariably runs if one puts a man-staffed industry like iron and steel in a centre of housing development with high rents.
The first risk is that if anything happens to the industry, the town gets the kind of depression about which everyone in the House knows and on which I shall not dwell now. The next thing is that there comes a demand for light labour, particularly for women and some of the other people in the town, which cannot be satisfied in a one-industry town. Something has been done in Corby, but in my view, and in that of the responsible inhabitants, including the council itself, not enough, by way of providing—I hardly call it "ancillary"—secondary industries in connection with what looks like being a large one-industry town.
That is linked with the question of transport. What is expected is that the women and other people who are not engaged in the steel works should seek the work that they desire in neighbouring

towns, in this case particularly in Kettering, where there is scope for a considerable amount of labour. I understand that attitude, but if it is to be persisted in something special will have to be done to keep down transport costs—in plain English, the bus fares—in that part of the country. I believe it could be done on the basis of having special competition and keeping an eye on what is going on. The transport company concerned—I know that this is the business of the licensing authority—is not doing at all badly, and I see no reason why special efforts should not be made in a case of that sort, if a secondary industry cannot be provided in the town itself, to cheapen the transport used by workers seeking employment in the immediate neighbourhood.
Thirdly, the development corporation, under directives issued by the Ministry, are at present bound, if they follow the directive, to overcharge for certain public buildings which are required. I was interested to hear my hon. Friend say that Hertfordshire had had its county council buildings on credit, and I hope that will work out well enough. The more cautious county of Northamptonshire has not gone into its buildings on credit and has been faced with what it can only regard as exorbitant demands by the development corporation, demands which under the directive the development corporation is bound to make, as far as I can see.

Questions which need attention are those relating to the value that can be obtained for the land and of not standing in the way of public buildings such as schools, police stations and markets which ought to be provided in the new towns in the best place for the purpose. We ought not to have public authorities who are carrying out obviously necessary functions being driven to carry them out in unsuitable places because a Ministry has issued directives which oblige a development corporation to ask excessive prices for the most suitable sites.

6.9 p.m.

Mr. Desmond Donnelly: We have had a very pleasant and quiet debate. There has been a good deal of unanimity on both sides of the House. It has been so quiet that at times it has been a little disturbing.
Three things can be said about the debate on the credit side. First, there has not been a great deal of support for the rather Bloomsburyish attitude expressed in an editorial in "The Times" last week. Secondly, we have been spared a speech from the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine). I am sorry he has now left. I could not help feeling deeply sorry for him when he sat listening to the earlier part of the debate alone and palely loitering, a very different figure from the bellicose person who used to talk about new towns when the Labour Government were in office. Obviously, the hon. Member has been subdued by the Whips and what was proper in the days when a Labour Government were in office is no longer possible because he is disowned even by his own party. I should not be at all surprised if the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland was able to tell us that the hon. Gentleman had actually gone down to the Tate Gallery to pose as an exhibit in the Unknown Political Prisoner's Exhibition.
The thing which I think is also on the credit side of the debate—and I am sure this will be agreed by hon. Members on both sides who have taken part in town planning debates in the past—is that we are not very late today, mainly because we have not had a speech also by the hon. and learned Member for Ilford, North (Sir G. Hutchinson). That has enabled us to keep more closely to the time-table than usual.
I now come to the debate itself. In opening the debate, the Parliamentary Secretary said that we were going to stick at this number of new towns for the moment; that we would get these established first before embarking on any further projects. He also said a bit about the possibilities of utilising the Town Development Act, 1952, and expanding the existing country towns as a means of receiving the overspill from the big cities.
I should like the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to go into a little more detail, because, although the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government said that discussions were under way with the London County Council and how important the London County Council

thought this proposal, we have been talking about the subject for a very long time. I remember that when Lord Silkin was Minister of Town and Country Planning we talked about expanding Ashford and St. Albans and one or two of the country towns which might be suitable as receiving areas. We are still talking about it under this Government of lightning administrators. We want to see something done about it.
Perhaps the Minister, when he finishes his search for political popularity and is prepared to step down from the rôle of a sort of political co-respondent trying to seduce the electorate by his 300,000 houses proposal to home-hungry housewives, will pay some attention to this acute problem which is the basic question of how to provide decent homes for Londoners and people in other big cities Perhaps the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will give us more details about it if he has any.
Unless the Government come forward with a good deal more useful information, I must warn them that when we have the full-dress debate on the new towns some of us will be very dissatisfied and will make things awkward for them. In any case, I think that the idea of sticking at nine new towns is a defeatist policy. The houses have to be built somewhere. Therefore, let us build them in the right places. Likewise, the schools have to be built somewhere. The Government will certainly have to pay attention to that matter after tomorrow's debate. Why not build the schools in suitable areas near the houses?
The Government must also do something about factories, because after the temporary lull and the feeling of satisfaction resulting from the Coronation is over, we shall be up against the hard reality of earning a living in a difficult world, and our success or otherwise in that matter will depend upon whether we have the factories with easy production lines which do not end at the factory gates, ready supplies of raw materials and the nearby workers available to give of their best in order to get the necessary production. We should like more details now, and also at a future date.
The next point which has been dealt with at some length during the debate is the question of amenity. My hon.


Friend the Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney), in a very good speech indeed, referred to this problem, as, indeed, did one or two other of my hon. Friends, and the hon. Member for Angus, North and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) spoke about the conference last week at the Town and Country Planning Association. It is a very difficult problem to which we must give some thought.
However, I am not entirely in agreement with either the findings of the conference or with the letter from the rector of Crawley which appeared in "The Times" yesterday, because I often wonder whether or not, in the case of voluntary bodies which are promoting voluntary activities, it is best that they should be spoon-fed. I feel that in many cases the cold wind of adversity is one of the most successful ways of making voluntary societies function satisfactorily. If the people concerned have to work for something, then those societies are very often more effective, more alive and more useful than they would be if they were receiving Government grants or assistance from outside.
There are great opportunities in these new towns for building a new cultural life, and, very frequently, because there are so few cinemas in the new towns, there are better opportunities for building up the voluntary societies. They have to live first hand instead of indulging in vicarious vitality at the movies. I believe that a good deal more is done by local initiative than by Government assistance. However, there is an argument to be put forward in favour of both sides, and it is a case of having wise administration and sympathetic assistance wherever a situation may arise where a little help or guidance may be necessary.
I was struck the other day when going round one of the new towns at the large church buildings that are being erected there at the moment. This is digressing a little, but it is an issue to which, I think, the Government and the new towns corporations ought to give some thought. I hope that my remarks will not be construed as anti-churches or anti-organised religion of any kind. Very often we build churches in these new towns as though visualising huge congregations. It might be better, first, to establish the need for these churches, or

to start with smaller buildings which might, if necessary, be adapted later to some other kind activity rather than build large edifices just at this moment.
It is very important that we should not build churches in the second half of the 20th Century in the belief that we are living in the first half of the 19th Century, and thus build great hulks riding the fairways of new towns and which will not be occupied. We must appreciate that times have changed. It is far better for the churches to have smaller and more sympathetic buildings in which it is much easier to preach a sermon to a few dozen people in a relatively intimate atmosphere than have to bawl at the congregation across great voids and down great empty pews, and it would certainly be more economical. I object to Christianity at the shout.

Major H. Legge-Bourke: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that if that policy had been followed in the past, we should probably never have had one of the greatest glories which this country possesses—her cathedrals?

Mr. Donnelly: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is quite right. All I am saying is that at the moment these new towns are in the process of being built. We are not building these churches as cathedrals of the future, and there are many priorities which might come first. On the other hand, we could build smaller buildings which might, as I say, be adapted at some future date when the circumstances change. Of course, the cathedrals, and so on, are the great pride of British architecture and are lasting tributes to people who built them at a time when nothing was known about stresses and strains or about Chancellors of the Exchequer and the capital investment programme. They went ahead and built them. I am just thinking aloud about something to which we ought to give more attention in the future.
Several hon. Members have talked about the need for more industry in the new towns. The Parliamentary Secretary gave us some figures which sounded very impressive, but when we get down to the question itself I think we find that they are far more impressive. In one or two of the new towns, the industrial question is a very real problem indeed, and the real trouble is the over-departmentalised bureaucracy of hon.


Gentlemen opposite. The Board of Trade lives in a self-contained compartment in blinkers and spends a great deal of time issuing licences, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks), which increase still further the amount of industry in London and the traffic congestion caused in getting raw materials to the factory gates and transporting the manufactured goods from the factories.
If the Board of Trade continues this policy, sooner or later some of the inhabitants of that Department will find that they cannot get to their work in order to carry on that policy. That may be a good thing of course. The traffic jam will be so great in London that nobody will be able to get through at all. The last few weeks have demonstrated the huge problem which will arise in the future. It is the duty of the Minister of Housing and Local Government to draw the attention of his colleagues to the transport problem in the big cities. In part it arises from the fact that the President of the Board of Trade persists in issuing industrial certificates in the great conurbations, very frequently using the only criterion at the moment: "How soon can they get manufacturing industry on its feet" without realising that industry will have to fight in a difficult world in the years ahead and will be facing very real problems.
The Government are entirely failing in their duty in this respect of trying to get a plan in these matters. The Minister of Housing and Local Government is not to blame, because I recognise that he is a kind of political prisoner in that Government. It is not entirely his fault, but he might at least draw the attention of the President of the Board of Trade when the Cabinet meet, although I believe it is difficult from time to time to arrange a meeting in these days.
Perhaps he will draw these matters to the attention of the President of the Board of Trade and will say to him: "A great deal has been done for the development areas." Most of that stands to the credit of my right hon. Friend whom we call the "Bishop of Auckland." I am not going to indulge in any canonisation of my right hon. Friend, but that work will always be associated with his

name. "We have reached a peak in some of the development areas at which we do not any more need light industry and a good deal of it might be redirected to the new towns." It might be a declared object of Government policy to see that the new towns and the expanding country town receive equal priority for light industry with the development areas, who have reached saturation point.
A great deal has been said about density, and there was reference to the leading article in "The Times" last Wednesday about it. The article was answered last Saturday in an admirable letter by Mr. F. J. Osborn. We have to preserve an attitude of reality. The hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Finlay) in a very able speech, but also an extremely dangerous speech, was rather following the steps of the hon. Member for Billericay, only on a slightly higher plane. The hon. Member ought to bear in mind that if he hopes to represent the new town of Harlow for very long he must see that there are decent living conditions in the town. It is no good agitating for higher density in Harlow because he is only creating trouble for himself in the future. He may depend now to some extent upon farmers' votes but sooner or later he will depend upon the support of the people of Harlow. I urge him not to court any short-term popularity because we would like to hear many of his remarks in the future.
There has been a great deal of overstatement of the farming cases in regard to new towns. Of course we want to preserve good agricultural land, and it is vital to produce more food, but we must keep a balance in these matters. Some of the new towns will become great industrial towns in the future upon which this country will be equally dependent. Whenever we go to build anywhere it is always said that it is on the most profitable agricultural land in the area, always the best, although very frequently it is not. Mistakes have been made sometimes, and I agree that we ought to keep a watchful eye on the matter, but we must preserve a sense of proportion.
The agitation for the preservation of farm land has only come about in peacetime since the Labour Government of 1945. In the old days farmers were only


too anxious to sell every scrap of agricultural land they could to any speculative builder because they could not earn a good living on it. It is important for us to keep a sense of balance so that we do not go too far in this respect or give way to vocal sectional interests. We must bear in mind the needs of the national economy.
There is one other point which it is very important to remember, and that is the object of these new towns, which is to decentralise people from the great cities and give them a better opportunity for life and bring them to homes which are nearer to their work by reducing the length and the cost of the journey, and where the children can grow up in decent living conditions and healthy surroundings. That is the object of the original conception of Ebenezer Howard in "Towns of Tomorrow." It is very good that we should be discussing this subject in the year of the 50th anniversary of the founding of the first new town, the private enterprise effort at Letchworth.
It is a great tribute to the achievements of the Victorian Liberal reformers of the day that we have gone so far along that road that new towns are an accepted matter of national policy. It is important to see that these towns are recognised as social ventures and not as architectural ventures, as "The Times" in its leading article, envisaged. The new towns will stand or fall on whether people in them like living there, not whether they please the architects or the architectural papers. They must provide light and fresh air. Decent homes and schools and short journeys to work. As machines for living in, the new towns must be efficient so that people can live their lives in them. We must continually bear that point in mind. Density is the key to result.
That carries with it the conclusion as a logical corollary, the improvement of living conditions in the big cities from which the people go to the new towns. A good deal has been said about taking people from the big cities to the new towns., but nothing has been done about stopping the infilling when people leave the big cities. People can always come in and take the factories and other premises. That is a problem which the Government will have to answer sooner or later. It is no good talking about

town planning unless we see that the vacated places are not filled up.
I hope that when we come to the full-dress debate on the new towns we shall have a clear statement of Government policy on this matter, because in it lies the key to the whole problem. It is of no use to pay lip-service to town planning and not pay attention to the realities and to the central problem—unless we are to repeat in the future the mistakes that previous generations made. The problem is becoming doubly acute and urgent, and something to which hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House must turn their attention if we are not to break faith with all the high hopes, grand promises and great plans which followed the 1945 period.

6.30 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander T. D. Galbraith): rose——

Mr. A. Woodburn: Before the hon. and gallant Gentleman replies, may I put two questions to him? None of my hon. Friends on this side of the House from Scotland has caught the Speaker's eye today. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Not in regard to any Scottish question. [HON. MEMBERS:"Yes."] Except perhaps the hon. Gentleman who dealt with the Scottish new towns, and the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). [HON. MEMBERS:" No."] I mean from this side.
Anyway, I do not want to delay the House but only to put two questions. My hon. Friends have exercised a self-denying ordinance. Everybody wants to get on to the next debate and to shorten the time on this one. I should like the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to say whether the existing new towns are the only ones in contemplation with this new grant of money, or whether the Government are considering new towns, for example to relieve Glasgow's problem. There are rumours of a new town at Cumbernauld and one at Houston. Can he tell us whether these matters are still under consideration, and give us an outline of the Government's plans in regard to this money? We hope to take part in a debate in the future which will deal with this matter in a rather wider sphere. All I want, therefore, is some explanation of these points tonight.

Commander Galbraith: The purpose of this Bill is to authorise a further £50 million for our new towns. I gather from statements which have been made from the Front Bench opposite that they are satisfied that this money should be forthcoming, and for that I am indeed very grateful. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government gave a very full and detailed report of the progress that has been made with the new towns during the past year. I thought that the House was very grateful indeed to have those details so that hon. Members would be enabled to concentrate on certain major problems.
Undoubtedly the House has attended to those major problems, and three or four of them in particular. I should like to join with the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) in congratulating the new town corporations on the very excellent work they have done and the manner in which they have got ahead with their work in recent months. I am sure that that is also the wish of my right hon. Friend. Some concern has been expressed by the hon. Member for Wellingborough about the increasing density of houses. He suggested that it was the aim of the Government to increase the density to 16 houses per acre. That is not the case. The density at the moment is running at about 13 houses per acre. That compares very favourably indeed with densities in modern urban development, and I do not think that it is too great a density at which to aim.
The hon. Member was also concerned about the slowing down of the provision of new schools, but I think that we should leave that question to the debate tomorrow when my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government will deal fully with that matter. The question of the higher rents which are paid in these new communities was raised by two or three hon. Members and explanations were given of why the rents should be somewhat higher than those of comparable local authority houses. But, of course, there are certain counter-balancing factors which we ought to take into account. There is the fact that people working in the new towns should not have to spend anything like so much on bus, train or underground fares

to get to work, particularly those who have come from London.
There is no evidence whatsoever in the new towns, so far as I know, to show that people are not willing to pay for the better amenities and facilities which they are receiving. Certainly at present there is no general indication that the higher rents are either stopping a sufficient flow of people into the new towns or when they have settled down make them feel impelled to move back to the towns from which they came. That is very satisfactory.

Mr. Sparks: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman read the annual reports of the new towns? He will find that more than one report states specifically the difficulty that the new towns are experiencing in getting people to take new houses on account of the high rents. In my constituency a number of people have declined to go to new towns because they cannot pay these rents.

Commander Galbraith: That may be so in certain cases, but what I have said is true. There are still more applicants than there are houses to put them into.
I fully appreciate that the old inhabitants of some of these old communities make appreciable sacrifices at the same time as they gain certain advantages. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough) took up my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government wrongly when he spoke about playing fields, because my hon. Friend appreciates, as do all of us on the Government Front Bench, the importance of playing fields for these communities.
That brings me to the point which has been raised time and time again about the so-called failure to provide various amenities as these houses go up. The Parliamentary Secretary explained very carefully in his opening speech that it was the aim of his right hon. Friend and of the Government to develop a balanced community as rapidly as possible, to see that the houses were matched by factories, public buildings, schools and playing fields and all the other amenities that are necessary for any properly balanced community. I assure the House that that is the aim of the Government today.
On the subject of industry I should like to give a word of advice, if I may, to my


hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mr. Patrick Maitland). I suggest that he should not be so despondent about the future. It is no good trying to build anything if we are always looking over our shoulders and seeing disaster just round the corner. I assure him that we have every reason to be thankful about employment in the new town of East Kilbride. We believe that employment there is secure for a good many days to come.
Specific questions were put to me by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has informed the local authority who have written to him on the subject of rents that we would gladly arrange for a local deputation to be received to discuss that subject.

Mr. Mitchison: Unfortunately the right hon. Gentleman added that there was no money coming, and that is what they want.

Commander Galbraith: The hon. and learned Member really must not expect too much at once. My right hon. Friend has said that he will be glad to receive a deputation. The hon. and learned Member also asked about the cost to be paid by the county council for sites for public buildings in the new town of Corby. I understand that the present state of negotiations indicates that the parties are getting very close to agreement on price.
We had a very interesting and amusing speech from the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly). I can assure him that in my own part of the world we find that very great pressure is put on us to provide churches for these new communities. These churches are being much used. I suggest to the hon. Member that he should look at the new type of church that is being built both in England and Scotland. It provides for public use during the week a most commodious hall which can be rapidly converted for church purposes on Sunday. I am sure that he would be very interested. I have answered most of the questions which have been put to me, and I commend this Bill to the House.

Mr. Woodburn: rose——

Commander Galbraith: I am sorry. I had forgotten the two questions which were put to me at the last moment by the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn). I apologise. I was not endeavouring to dodge the issue. As the right hon. Gentleman probably knows, these new towns in Scotland are concerned chiefly with the area of the Clyde basin. In that connection, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has invited the Planning Committee for that area to go into the question and to advise him what they think is the best procedure to relieve the congestion which exists in the City of Glasgow today. Until their report is received I cannot say anything further on that subject. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put. and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Oakshott.]

Committee Tomorrow.

NEW TOWNS [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees) [Queen's Recommendation signified.]

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to increase the amount of advances which may be made to development corporations under section twelve of the New Towns Act, 1946, it is expedient to authorise any increase, attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session raising to one hundred and fifty million pounds the limit of one hundred million pounds imposed in respect of such advances by subsection (1) of the said section twelve (as amended by the New Towns Act, 1952), in the sums which, under or by virtue of the said Act of 1946 or section two of the Licensed Premises in New Towns Act, 1952, are to be or may be issued out of the Consolidated Fund, defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament, raised by borrowing, remitted or paid into the Exchequer.—[Mr. Marples.]

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS)

6.44 p.m.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Transfer of Functions (Ministry of Pensions) Order, 1953, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 18th May.
This draft Order is one which, if carried into effect, will merge two Departments into one. The Government's decision on this matter was announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister as long ago as 26th February, and a White Paper was published on 13th May. The Order was laid on 18th May. The White Paper was very thorough and comprehensive in the details which it gave and I do not think the House would wish me to go through it all. The Ministers who are most concerned are here to give any further explanations that may be required and to answer any questions which may be put to them, but I should like to confine myself to the main factors which have caused the Government to decide to put these proposals before Parliament.
It would be a truism to say that the whole question of the structure of the Government machine should be constantly under review by any Government. Changes occur, and what seems best in the public interest at one time may very well have to be modified at another. That is especially true of Her Majesty's present advisers, because it was this party which undertook to make a searching inquiry into all branches of administration.
Let us be quite clear about what we are going to discuss tonight. It is a purely organisational matter. This debate has nothing to do with the amount of pensions, the rights of pensioners, allowances, or anything of that sort. It is concerned only with how the best service can be given to the pensioners and their dependants while, at the same time, simplifying the machinery of Government and, where possible, reducing the cost.
Before going any further, let us consider the background to these proposals. The Ministry of Pensions was set up in 1917 and, as a result of the First World War, by 1920 there were in payment

1,600,000 pensioners. That was the peak. After that, right up to 1939, in the natural course of events those figures dropped until, at the beginning of the last war, they were down to 750,000, which was under half the peak figure of 1920. Those were mainly stabilised disablement pensions, which form the chief day-to-day responsibility of the Ministry
Then came the Second World Wax, and the figures rose again, but, thanks be to God, nothing like the same level was reached as was reached in 1920. In the period which corresponded to the peak period after the First World War—let us say, March, 1947—instead of being over 1½ million the disablement pensions in issue amounted to 766,000. In other words, we were nearly back to the 1939 figures. Since then they have been dropping, and by March of this year they were down to 667,000, which is well below the lowest figure in the inter-war years.
The reasons for that are quite simple. First, it is the sad fact that many of the First World War pensioners have died. The average age of those left is now 63. Secondly, many of the 1939 pensioners have gone off the books of the Ministry of Pensions because their recovery has been such that their pensions have lapsed.

Mr. F. J. Bellenger: Why does the White Paper say:
… by March, 1955, the number is expected to have fallen to 894,000.

Mr. Crookshank: That is the grand total. I am talking about disablement pensions. My hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions confirms that that is the case. One has to set off against this decline the fact that new pensions are now issued for peace-time service. For this year the figure of new awards is 12,700. The general picture is the great decrease after the First World War; the drop to 1939; the rise again, but nothing like so high a rise, and now a drop again, until we have now reached a figure lower than that for 1939. That is the figure I give to compare with the likelihood of 894,000 pensioners in two years' time, to which the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) has referred. The corresponding total number in March, 1947, which was the peak, was 1,136,000, so there is a drop in the same way there.
We get the same sort of graph with regard to the staff of this Department. In 1921, the great peak year, the staff was 26,000. Then it dropped, until at the beginning of the Second World War, it was 3,000. Then, with the casualties of that war, it rose again, and by 1946 it reached 13,200, only half what it had been at the peak period after the First World War, but still the same tendency—the rise and then the drop—and today it is something like 9,000. It would be much less if it were not for the fact—to which I shall refer in more detail in a moment—that the Ministry of Pensions today do a lot of agency work for the other Departments. That has tended to keep the staff more numerous than would have been the case had they been limited to purely pensions work on their own account. That is the staff picture.
Next, there is the position of the hospitals. In 1921, in the peak year after the first war, there were 67 Ministry of Pensions hospitals. Today there are only eight. One naturally asks for the explanation, and it is, broadly speaking, that since the war the National Health Service has come into being, which has greatly altered the picture. If hon. Members look at the White Paper they will see from page 2 the marked decline in the use by war pensioners of the special hospital and treatment services of the Ministry of Pensions and their use of the National Health Service. That is one of the reasons which have moved the Government to come forward with these proposals.
After the first war, the time came when there was a general settling down of pensions problems and pensions work, and that sort of thing is happening again. There are two differences. First, the National Health Service has come into being for all classes for medical treatment. Secondly, the Ministry of National Insurance has come into being, and, amongst other things, it does very similar work for the industrially disabled as is done for the war disabled by the Ministry of Pensions. That is part of the justification of this change: the Ministry of National Insurance continues to have a great many contacts with the present Ministry of Pensions because the vast majority of pensioners are ordinary insured persons and therefore come within the purview of the Ministry of National

Insurance when unemployed or sick or receiving retirement pensions. There is already a considerable link in case work between the two Departments.
If I may sum up that part of the argument, the background is diminishing work owing to declining numbers for the Ministry of Pensions and, as a consequence, a need for fewer rather than larger staffs. Secondly, there are the many contacts which both the Health Departments and the Ministry of National Insurance already have with the patients and pensioners of the Ministry of Pensions.
It was with those facts in view that the Government felt it was time to examine whether the Ministry of Pensions should continue, with its own pensions hospitals and its own medical services. The result of the review which the Government undertook is now before the House.
It is perhaps interesting, in passing, to note that in the debate last July the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), who has made a considerable study of the problems and machinery of Government, suggested the division of the Ministry of Pensions. What he called the therapeutical side, he said, should go to the Department of Health, and he said the cash paying and appeals machinery should go to the Ministry of Labour. That was an interesting suggestion, but the Government do not agree that the Ministry of Labour should be the legatee of the Ministry of Pensions. Nevertheless, it is clear that the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale at any rate shares our view about the division and redistribution of functions—and, after all, this is merely an organisational and certainly not a political issue.
The details are in the White Paper and I will not go through them all, because I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members who are specially interested will have studied them and will want me to answer questions rather than give this description all over again. Either my right hon. or my hon. Friend, as the case may be, will be able to deal with any queries.

Mr. George Wigg: The right hon. Gentleman has made this part of the case on the basis of the run-down of the Ministry of Pensions, but he has failed to point out to the House that there is


one marked difference between the present position and what happened after the first war. The decision has been taken by the Service Departments that all disability pensions after 3rd September, 1939, for both Regulars and National Service men, should be paid by the Ministry of Pensions. Since 1946 25,000 pensioners have been added to the Ministry of Pensions. That will go on year after year. That factor was not present after the first world war.

Mr. Crookshank: Even if I accept that, it is a very small proportion of the total. I am aware of the fact but, on the hon. Gentleman's own figures, it is only 25,000, whereas we are dealing with 500,000 or 600,000 or 700,000, so that it is a very small fraction of the total. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to develop that, I am sure my right hon. Friend will be able to satisfy him about his anxiety.
In a sentence, efficiency and administrative economy is the aim we have in view. I will not go over the points as to why we think efficiency will be increased by our proposal, but I want to make this point, which I think is worth making: when the National Health Service was started it had thrust upon it and the Health Departments responsibility to supply artificial limbs, surgical appliances and invalid vehicles to civilians. As a new Ministry it had no facilities for doing any of these things and it therefore handed that part of the work over to the Ministry of Pensions on an agency basis. That was an obvious thing to do, because that Department had special experience in this field, but it must have been in everybody's mind that sooner or later the Health Departments would have to do their job and not leave it under the agency of the Ministry of Pensions. We think the time has come for that change, because the great bulk of the work the Ministry of Pensions is now doing in this field is not for war pensioners at all but for civilians, who are primarily the responsibility of the Departments of Health.
Let us take the other point—economy. It is accepted that when we simplify things we get easier and cheaper administration. The sort of economy which is envisaged here, when it has all settled down, is about £500,000 a year. That is only a very small fraction of the total

which appears on the Estimates for the services of this Department, but it is a very high proportion of their administrative costs, which are something like £4 million. A sum of £500,000 out of £4 million is a large proportion to be able to save in the course of whatever is the number of years before it settles down. One must not be misled by the gross total which appears in the Estimate for the Ministry of Pensions, because that reflects the higher rates of pensions payable compared with 1939. It does not mean that there are more cases.
Turning to the effect on individuals, we think a lot of time in travel and trouble will be saved by the fact that the Ministry of National Insurance has something like 900 offices all over the country whereas the Ministry of Pensions has about 90. If there are 900 instead of 90 to do the same sort of work, it will obviously entail much less travelling in a number of cases than is entailed now. In the same way, in many areas there is already one boarding centre which does the work for both the Ministry of National Insurance and the Ministry of Pensions. That system is not universal, but it has been successful, as is shown by its existence and by the fact that no complaints have been made about it. We have looked at the question of whether there is any justification for maintaining a separate Ministry of Pensions in view of the dwindling number of war pensioners, and whether we should keep the Ministry with just that duty and no other to perform. We have come to the conclusion that that justification has now come to an end.
This is the most vital point we have to bear in mind—and we have had it in the forefront of our thoughts all the time: that however we consider the problem, it is of the utmost importance that the pensioners themselves and their dependants are in no way adversely affected by the changes. That is the point. As regards the staff of the Department, one has to bear them in mind, too. They will be first of all absorbed, and then, as the work diminishes, it will not be necessary to make fresh appointments, and so on; and so I think, to use a colloquialism, they can be looked after all right in this sphere.
When it comes to the pensioners themselves and their dependants, I can say


categorically that unless the Government had been absolutely confident that the changes would not be detrimental to the war pensioners they would never have dreamed of producing them to the House at all. We give in the White Paper the comprehensive arrangements. There hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will see that the war pensioners' privileges will not only be preserved but extended. There is no down grading or submerging, but the process of the sympathetic welfare system will be fully maintained. Another source of anxiety has been the preferential system in regard to hospitals. That will go on.
I will quote what the Prime Minister said when he forecast these proposals in February, because I cannot put it in stronger words. He said:
We regard it on our side as a matter of honour …that their treatment shall in no circumstances be allowed to deteriorate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT,26th February, 1953; Vol. 511, c. 2317.]
It is because we are satisfied that that is the case that we come forward today with these proposals. If we had not been, the House would not have heard of them at all.
The fact remains at the end of the argument that, while there will be economies, as we hope to see, they are on what we may call the mechanical side of pensions work, the recording, the paying out, the making out of books—all that. The all-important welfare work will continue, and just because a particular welfare worker in the future writes a letter on the writing paper of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance instead of on the writing paper of the Ministry of Pensions, or telephones from the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance instead of from the Ministry of Pensions, that mere change is not going to mean that the welfare worker loses his sympathetic method of approach to these problems which has been so much praised and which is so very splendid.

Mr. R. T. Paget: rose——

Mr. Crookshank: I think I had better finish what I have to say on this point. On the other hand, the hon. and learned Gentleman never sees me without wanting to interrupt me, so I think I had better give way at once.

Mr. Paget: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, because this is a most friendly question. Will they be the same welfare officers? Particularly I am interested in the children's officers, who have established a special relation, a parental relation, with a lot of their wards. As I understand it. they are to go.

Mr. Crookshank: The answer to that is that they are going to be kept on, subject to normal retirements. The time may come when the individuals now there will not be there, but from the take over they will be there, and doing the same sort of work as they are doing now. The mere fact that they go on to the payroll of another Department will not make them automatically into bureaucratic robots. They will be the same people dealing with the same sort of problems.

Mr. Paget: I am most grateful to have that assurance.

Mr. Crookshank: If the hon. and learned Gentleman has a further point he would like to develop, perhaps he will do so later on. The staff will be absorbed on the take-over, and the welfare workers will continue doing what they are doing now. That is not the field on which the administrative economies come, but I must make the point about retirement, because they are not going to be there for the rest of time, any more than the rest of us.
I hope that what I have said is sufficient to show the House that the Government have gone very carefully and sympathetically into all the problems that have arisen since the announcement was first made, and I recommend these proposals to the House for the reasons which I have given, but I cannot finally advise the disappearance of the Ministry of Pensions without saying how much the nation as a whole, and the pensioners and their dependants in particular, owe first of all to the long series of Ministers who have held that office, beginning in 1917 with the late Mr. G. Barnes, and ending, I presume, with my hon. Friend, and his immediate predecessor the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southwark (Mr. Isaacs).
I have seen, I think it is, 12 in that office in the time I myself have been in


this House. I have always found them all sympathetic and kindly administrators. It is not only to them that the nation and the pensioners owe a high debt of gratitude. It is also to successive generations of civil servants who have been in the Department, and who have, like the Ministers, had only one aim in view, to serve those who suffered as a result of war. I am confident that their successors in the work, even if it is in another Department, will have the same high purpose constantly before them.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. George Isaacs: I do not question for a moment the belief of the Government that what they are doing is in the interests of the pensioners. We believe that to be so, but we have some doubts which we should like to have cleared up.
The right hon. Gentleman, the tone of whose speech we appreciate, made use of one or two phrases to which I should like to draw attention. He said, "How can the best service be provided for the pensioners and their families? "But he went on to say," This is a purely organisational matter." The White Paper makes a reference, which is disturbing, to possible staff economies, and that seems to be the chief question in the White Paper.
I should like to put a number of questions to which I should like an answer. It is a pleasure to see tonight so many Ministers here, having to face up to the barrage of questions coming to them. They will have to sort out between themselves who will answer which. My job, and that of my hon. Friends, is to shoot the questions, and we hope to hit the right target when we shoot.
I myself can look back to and remember—though I may not look old enough—the end of the Boer War, and I remember the barrel organs in the streets of London. I remember the disabled soldiers going about on peg legs, and the barrel organs which were used by them in their efforts to cadge money. In 1917 the establishment of the Ministry of Pensions put an end to that sort of thing, and ever since then the Ministry have carried out their task for the country and earned the approbation of all who have

had anything to do with them and their work.
In 1925, there were 1½ million pensioners and 32,000 staff. In that period, an economy stunt was in progress. We remember the May Committee and the Geddes Axe. When the Second World War began the staff was down to 3,000. What a debt of gratitude this country owes to that staff. How happy we must all be that we did not have the idea then of merging the Ministry of Pensions, but rather left it as a separate unit. Upon the work of that staff of 3,000 has been built that great and inspired service which has earned not only the thanks and appreciation but the commendation of everybody who has had anything to do with the "veterans," as they term them in America.
I remember being in America before I became the Minister of Pensions, and I met those in charge of what they call the Veterans' Service in America, and heard how they envied the services we were able to give here. There were some services that they gave that we did not, but they were anxious to be able to give those that were in operation here. The Ministry of Pensions have been a pioneer in new ideas and practices. The Ministry of Pensions, in their development, have in many ways cut away the red tape, dispelled the red tape atmosphere, and brought into being the humanitarian spirit of hospital blue. To say that is to give some idea of the changes which they have brought about.
Even the Service Departments, the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, realised that the Ministry of Pensions could do better for the pensioners than they could, because they took jolly good care to pass over to the Ministry of Pensions those with injuries which were non-war injuries, or industrial injuries that happened to men in the Services. I think that kind of service will be needed more in the future because, with the mechanisation of the Armed Forces, there will be more industrial injuries.
We want to know, first of all, that that will remain, and that the new Ministry if it is established—we hope that it will not be—will carry on that part of the service. There are some specialised services of the Ministry. One has only to mention Roehampton or Queen Mary's Hospital. Almost the last public


function which her late Majesty Queen Mary undertook was to spend a day at that hospital. It was established and created for war pensioners. Thank goodness, it did not have enough work to do to keep it fully occupied with war pensioners, so it turned its activities to civilian people as well.
I well remember being fascinated by the sight of a little girl with two artificial legs walking up to Queen Mary and presenting her with a bouquet. I think that that incident repaid her late Majesty for all the interest she had ever shown in Roehampton Hospital. Roehampton is not a geographical location, as they call these things in "Twenty Questions"; it is not a building; it is something better. It is the Mecca of the limbless ex-Service men and women. They want to go to Roehampton.
One has to go there to understand what is done there—how they pioneer in finding out new types of artificial limbs, how they find out new methods of training in the use of artificial limbs—and to see young and middle-aged men who have been used to the old heavy type of limbs being taught how to walk again with the new kinds of artificial limbs. To see is to understand. This great "know-how" is now available for civilian Departments as well as military Departments, but we are very anxious to know what is to be the position of Roehampton in this new set-up.
There is another specialist centre at Stoke Mandeville, which is just a name to those people who have not been there to see what is done. We find there people with spinal injuries, paralytics. It was conceived and developed by the Ministry of Pensions and is now at the service of civilians. I know that I shall not be misunderstood when I say that the days of miracles are not past. Go to Stoke Mandeville and see a miracle. It is not a question of "Take up thy bed and walk," but of" Get out of that bed and walk," and I have seen it. People who had been there for three or five years, unable to move, are now walking about.
There was a man who had a broken back who had been in this hospital. He took a bet with the doctor that he would never walk again. The doctor, knowing more about it than the man himself, had a bet that he would. I was there to see

the final of the race. This man had to walk a measured distance along a passageway. He had two sticks and with their aid he walked. When he came back the doctor said, "Throw one stick away and now walk," and he did. The doctor then said," Throw the other stick away." The man looked at him, took a chance, threw the stick away, and walked. I think that the happiest picture that I have seen in my life was the look on that man's face and the look on the doctor's face when he said. "I have won my bet."
There are many cases of that kind. Is this to come to an end under the staffing economies? Is this to come under "financial stringency "? What we need at Stoke Mandeville is not a spreading over of the control of that department. May I beg of the Minister, if this proposal goes through, to say that so far as that centre is concerned he will keep it under the group of people now running it, and that he will not spread the control of administration by setting up another committee and another area board. The job that is being done there is of a kind that is not done anywhere else in the world. I saw a soldier there from Korea who had been shot through the back. When he came in he thought that he would never walk again but, talking to the people there, and seeing them in the progressive stages of walking again, gave him confidence and was part of the psychological treatment of this man. Do not let such people as these suffer under a merger.
A lot of sentiment is talked about these matters. A few weeks ago we saw a great display of sentiment in this country; and sentiment means a lot to us. I know that someone who died for her country said, "Patriotism is not enough." Someone may say that sentiment is not enough, but it carries us over a good many obstacles.
Someone asked a question about the children's officers. Those who are doing this official work, mainly women, have a very great personal interest in it. They know every child by name and they know their background. I know that when one goes into some camps one sees "pin-up" girls and, possibly, in other camps "pinup" boys, but when one goes into the offices of the children officers one sees "pin-up" children, photographs of each


of the children they have cared for—they know all about them.
Go into one of these offices before Christmas and see how the staff, out of their own pockets, have bought a gift for every one of the children. See how they arrange their Christmas parties. The motto that should be written over the doors of these offices is "Suffer little children to come unto me," because there they get the greatest care and attention possible.
What is their official task? It is the supervision of orphans in their foster homes, whether with relatives or other persons; guidance in their education, clothing and holidays. I am sure that the present Minister, when visiting these officers and getting in touch with these children themselves, must have been entranced by the stories they could tell him: "Little Mary has won a scholarship"—and some go up to universities because of the help, guidance and care given to them by these officers. The children get pocket money for their holidays and advice about their clothing and other matters.
Then comes the time when someone wants to adopt one of these children. Who is to be responsible? It says in the White Paper that the Ministry will be responsible. That is not good enough. No Ministry can be responsible. Let us have the Minister, as an individual, responsible, because it is the Minister, after the foster parent has passed through all the examinations before finally becoming a foster parent and has been watched by the children's officers for a year or two years before, who, in the end, as the legal parent of these children, has to say yes or no. We want a person and not an organisation in charge of that particular job.
These are some of the activities of the Department. I think that the Department itself best expresses these ideals in its annual report for the year 1st April, 1949, to 31st March, 1950. I should like to put on record what it says, because I am sure that many hon. Members have not read it and that very few people outside this House know about it. It says:
The prompt and regular payment of a cash award after entitlement has been established is not an end in itself. The full conception of social service calls for something

more—friendly contacts, the human touch, social rehabilitation. Steadily improving provisions are well enough, but complete satisfaction is not achieved if to the individual the administration appears remote or bureaucratic. The individual is helped in his adversities not only by practical assistance but by the knowledge that someone has been sympathetic, that someone has thought that his affairs mattered, that someone has found time to dwell on them.
It goes on to say:
The award of a pension by the Department entitles the individual to more than merely the payment of a sum of money. It gives him a passport to the good will of a large Government service, to the benefit of a sympathetic interest in his affairs and to such help as may be given or obtained for him in the solving of his problems.
Finally, it says:
It entitles him to come forward at any time confident that he will find a sympathetic listener. Indeed he has not necessarily to come forward. The welfare activities of the Department are being shaped to seek him, to bring the administration nearer to him on a personal footing. He is not a cypher, not one of a million pensioners, but an individual who has a special claim on the community.…
We hope that that spirit will be maintained, and it is because we think that it is a little premature yet to make this change that we ask the Government to wait a little longer before they make this drastic alteration.
I wish to put a few direct questions on the White Paper. Paragraph 8 says that there is to be an extra Parliamentary Secretary to assist the Minister in connection with war pensions. If that is to be done, is it not possible to have a Parliamentary Secretary with authority, on the same basis as the Secretary for Overseas Trade in the Board of Trade? If the change is to come can we not have a Parliamentary Secretary who himself will be directly answerable, certainly under the overriding authority of the Minister, but somebody we can question and shoot at if necessary—fortunately, there has never been much shooting either on one side or the other at the Ministry of Pensions—and who will be personally answerable to the House and to any hon. Member who wishes to question him?
Paragraph 12 refers to war pensioners receiving the treatment they need from "hospitals best able to provide it." Are the pensioners to have the choice of Roe-hampton or Chapel Allerton, in Leeds, or somewhere else? If they say, "I want to


go to Roehampton" the Minister might think he has a little better service at Chapel Allerton or elsewhere, but if they can go to the place in which they have confidence that goes a long way towards helping them to recover from their trouble.
Paragraph 14 says:
so long as a hospital is substantially used for war prisoners, the management committee concerned will be specially constituted to include adequate representation of ex-Service interests.
What is meant by "substantially" and by "adequate "? Does it mean that a mathematical construction will be put on the phrase so that when the percentage of civilian pensioners is x then the ex-Service interest will cease. That is a point on which we ask for an answer.
There is another point on which I wish to ask a question in connection with Stoke Mandeville. On page 5 there is a reference to "a special responsibility" of the Ministry of Pensions for the Spinal Centre at Stoke Mandeville. I should like to know what is meant by "a special responsibility." If it means what I pleaded for earlier, direct responsibility without any intermediary in the form of any other board or control of that kind, I think that that will be very useful indeed.
Roehampton hospital is the Mecca of the ex-Service man. It is stated, in paragraph 14, that
special arrangements will be necessary for its administration if and when it is brought within the National Health Service.
I do not like that "if and when." Can we be told more about this matter? Is there any question of taking this wonderful institution away from its special association with Queen Mary's Hospital, and all its wonderful work? It is the grandest place in the world, there is no other place like it. We can remember seeing, years ago, the men in hospital blue sitting on the commons surrounding Roehampton, and everyone felt happy that there was a place like that. Can we have that place specially allocated if this merger is to be pushed through?
Another special institution which has arisen out of this service is the Duchess of Gloucester House, Isleworth. Paragraph 18 says:

The residence is run in conjunction with the Ministry of Labour and National Service, who will take over full responsibility for its administration.
Curiously enough I had some contact in two Ministerial capacities with the Duchess of Gloucester House, Isleworth. What is meant by
will take over full responsibility for its administration.
Does it mean that the Minister of Labour is to be the housekeeper and hospital manager or does it mean administration of the other services for people who need some care and attention—medical, nursing and transport? Is all that going to the Ministry of Labour, or what does the phrase I quoted mean? We think it is necessary to have a clear line of demarcation to avoid confusion there.
Then there are the welfare services. We do not for a moment question the purpose and understanding of the words used by the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Motion, but let us see what are the words in paragraph 21 of the White Paper. It states:
The existing staff of specially trained welfare officers will continue to be available for this work both at headquarters and in the regions.
Do the words "existing staff" mean that the staff will be allowed to run down? Do they mean that the "staff of specially trained" officers is in jeopardy? Do they mean that only at headquarters and in the regions is this service to be maintained?
We appreciate that there are 900 centres in the joint Ministries which will be available, but we still feel that the pensioner should know for whom to ask for welfare purposes when he goes to any of these offices. There should be a welfare officer or a welfare officer's contact in every office, and where there is a large area there should be an assistant welfare officer who can make local visits and prompt contact for the regional offices. The welfare officers are doing a grand job. It is only when one leaves a Ministry where one has been in charge of a service like this, and goes back into one's constituency, that one realises what a grand job these men are doing for every disabled ex-Service man who comes to them.
It is not just a question of help in asking for a review of an assessment by the Minister. His aid is given in other problems. The welfare officer will take


up matters of loans or finding a house for the applicant. Nothing is too much trouble for the welfare officer, and, while we are glad to know that the purpose is to maintain the welfare service, I would ask whether this merger will permit it to be carried on in the same way.
I have already mentioned war orphans and have suggested that there should be a person, not an organisation, who will be responsible for the final decision in all matters affecting them. I have two questions to ask on the Order. It is not quite clear, though I think it can be readily assumed, that this merger makes no change in any way in the Royal Warrant—that the Royal Warrant remains completely unaffected by whatever this merger may do.
There is also the question whether each of the Ministries should present a separate report of their activities on behalf of war pensioners, or a comprehensive report. We suggest that should the merger come about the report should be a centralised one. I do not want a report from the Minister of National Insurance saying what he has done for the war pensioners and another from another Minister, and so on. I suggest that, apart from the Ministries' reports on their general activities, they should get together and have one comprehensive report, showing in their own sections—so that it can be seen in one glance—what has happened to war pensioners and their services, should this merger come about.
The whole project depends on good will and co-operation. It depends a great deal on the co-operation of the ex-Service organisations. Some people, when they think of them, have in mind the British Legion, the Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association and possibly S.S.A.F.A. There are far more than that, and these organisations are used to a large extent by the Ministry of Pensions. While I was Minister, because we felt so grateful to many of those organisations for helping to do something for a pensioner which the Minister has no authority to do, we invited representatives of these organisations to come and have tea with us one afternoon at the Ministry of Pensions. I believe that there are about 80 such organisations in existence—regimental, brigade and corps organisations.
Their good will means a lot; they can do a great deal and save the Government a lot of money. For example, there was the case of a man who wanted a motor-assisted cycle. He was not nearly within the conditions which would have enabled him to have one under the Government scheme. But a little sentiment was expressed, and for me, as I have said, sentiment goes a long way. We got into touch with his organisation—he was an ex-guardsman—and they promptly provided what we were unable to provide. That is one of the many examples of the kind of thing that they do.
The right hon. Gentleman asked at the beginning of this discussion: how can the best service be provided to the pensioners? We pray that the run-down will be such that before many years are past there will not be any more war pensioners, but for the moment, until there is a much greater run-down, we believe that these men will get a square deal. We have to build the faith of these men in other Ministries of a similar kind. I believe there is a growing faith in the Ministry of National Insurance and a belief that the officers in that Ministry want to help those who go to them for assistance, that they are not sheltering behind red tape and trying to find ways of depriving applicants.
I want to see that spirit growing. It is because we believe that the best way to be of service to the pensioners and their families is to let the present system continue for a short while that we ask the Government not to press this Motion.

7.31 p.m.

Sir Ian Fraser: I think it was in February of this year that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister somewhat startled the House, and certainly startled the ex-Service community, by announcing that the Ministry of Pensions was to go. Almost immediately, the distinguished soldier who was the Chairman of the British Legion, Major-General Sir Richard Howard-Vyse, said that he, and he thought the Legion, viewed this matter with great anxiety. He was speaking, as he thought, for the whole of the Legion, although he had not had the chance of consulting them then. He felt that this proposal was "playing down" the status of ex-Service men.
That was before the White Paper was issued. Then the White Paper came out; the various committees of the British Legion studied it in great detail, and then we came to Whitsuntide when the British Legion held its annual conference. At that conference over 1,000 delegates from all parts of England and Wales resolved unanimously to instruct their executive to do all in their power to prevent these proposals coming into force. More recently the British Legion in Scotland has passed a similar resolution. The Royal Air Forces Association is associated with us in this matter, and so is the British Limbless Ex-Service Men's Association. A vast number of smaller specialist organisations which do not take much part in public affairs feel the same way.
I do not doubt for one moment that when the Prime Minister said that he believed that these new proposals would not abate in any way the care that it was intended to give to ex-Service men and would not worsen their position, he believed that to be so. I do not doubt that my right hon. Friend who opened this debate so courteously, and the Minister of Pensions himself as well as Lord Woolton whom we went to see in deputation only the other day, and the Government as a whole for that matter, feel that they are acting rightly for disabled ex-Service men in what they are doing. They may even feel that they are giving these men the additional service that the new and bigger Ministry is able to give them. But we do not agree with them.
I myself before the Budget said "By their fruits shall ye know them." What I meant to convey was that in my opinion it was not so much a question of machinery of one kind or another but rather what Parliament and the nation did for disabled ex-Service men that really mattered. I am bound to say that I hoped that in the Budget debates when we were considering our finances, provision would have been made to meet the requests which the British Legion and other ex-Service organisations have so frequently put before this House, but such provision was not made.
This brings me on to the main reason for my anxiety in this matter, and this anxiety is shared by a great many in the British Legion. Old soldiers have a way of speaking bluntly, and we have called every Minister of Pensions in turn for

over 30 years by every conceivable name, but we have never yet called them redundant. There are still a million people receiving pensions from the Ministry. There is still a bill of over £80 million. There is still a good staff at the Ministry. The feeling created by the poignancy of war and the upsurge of sentiment that followed the war were reflected in the actions of the then Government in altering the attitude of the Ministry of Pensions towards pensioners, and instead of being on the defensive all the time the Ministry of Pensions became much more of a friend seeking to find out how it could help. That was greatly appreciated by ex-Service men.
The time may come when this admirable staff in the Ministry of Pensions becomes so small that it is not a good service to belong to, but I do not think that time has come yet. It is a good staff, and includes a great many disabled men. A certain number of disabled men, some of them particular friends of mine, blinded men who are physiotherapists in different parts of the country, are given cases by the Ministry. I hope this proposal will not go forward, but if it does I hope that the disabled men who are employed directly and indirectly will not lose their jobs. [AN HON. MEMBER:"Why should they?"] Somebody asks "Why should they?" That is the way things often go, and the time to take care of it is now when the Government are anxious—not tomorrow when they will not be quite so anxious, or perhaps when they will be a little more anxious—who knows?
It has been said that there are 900 branches of the Ministry of National Insurance throughout the country and only 90 branches of the Ministry of Pensions. There is admittedly something in that point. A pensioner may go to any one of these 900 branches and in time get some information which he might not otherwise be able to get. But there is not very much in it because there are 4,500 service committees of the British Legion throughout the country and he can go there and get the information. There are dozens of branches of B.L.E.S.M.A., and he can go there and get the information. There is not very much in it, and we need not exaggerate the point. Nor indeed will these 900 branches know very much about the matter. They will act merely as post offices passing the matter on.
What we are concerned with are two principles which I want to make clear. One is that the status of ex-Service men in the community is, we think, denigrated by this proposal. They are no longer a class apart. I do not use those words in any offensive sense, but every old soldier will understand what I mean when I say that he is proud that he has served in the Armed Forces of the Crown, and while he knows that he has been sustained in his fighting by the courage and good will of all the people who labour at home, he nevertheless is proud to have served His Majesty or Her Majesty in his regiment or corps. He likes to think that some little distinction remains.
In so far as we tend to treat him like any other sick or ill person, we denigrate his status and take away something of which he is proud. We also begin to teach Parliament, the public, civil servants and the newspapers that there is not all that difference between soldiers and sailors and others that there was before. The difference is strong when recruiting men for war, but it should not evaporate afterwards when days of peace settle down upon us. It is because this proposal takes away something of that separate feeling and pride that it is objectionable to many of us.
I do not say what I am going to say with a desire to hurt anybody, but I am quite sure it is true. Every person that I know who has been hurt in war likes to feel that there is some distinction in his disability which compensates him in some degree, and, curiously enough, we find that many a person who suffers an ailment which comes from a natural cause will, if he possibly can, try to find a traumatic reason for it. He will try to attribute it if he can to war. He thinks this not only because he can go to a benevolent Ministry of Pensions, but because he likes to think that the trouble which he carries with him arose out of some honourable service. We are to take away this special position, and there is really no very great need to do so.
When we had our own Minister, he was something of an advocate for us with the Government, in the Cabinet Committees and even the Cabinet itself. Even though that Minister was not a Member of the Cabinet, nevertheless, he had access to Cabinet Members and was an advocate

for us. It is, of course, true that, once Government policy is established, all Ministers, under the doctrine of collective responsibility, become individually and collectively responsible for the Government's policy, but, during the months that precede decision, during the formative period, the Minister of Pensions is an advocate. I have often felt that successive Ministers of Pensions whom I have been to see and whom I have known personally—though they never gave themselves away to me—have been doing all they possibly could with the Chancellor of the Exchequer with the single-minded purpose of getting what we were asking them to do for us, and I am sure it is true.
We are to replace our advocate by this new Minister who is trammelled by responsibility for vast numbers of other people who are not ex-Service people. His single-minded advocacy can no longer be at our disposal. We have been robbed of our own advocate within the Government, and I do not think it can be said that it is advantageous. To put this matter on another basis, if we are continuing to fight, as we are, for the full recognition of our pensions claims, it handicaps us in that there is no separate Ministry or Minister who will take our line against the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I shall not weary the House with a repetition of the pleas made so often that our war pensions should be brought into better relationship with the currency of this present time, but the fact is that you are now going to make it more difficult for us to win that battle, which is the principal reason why I am opposed to this merger. I still hope that the Minister may be able to tell us something that will seem satisfactory, but I do not expect a miracle, and I have had to make up my mind. I have made up my mind that, unless a miracle occurs, which I do not expect, I am going to vote against this Motion tonight. I should like to make it clear that my vote against the Motion is not a vote for the Opposition. Rather than engage in arguments which would be misunderstood, I should like the facts to speak for themselves.
In the six years from 1945 to 1951, Parliament voted £12 million for war pensions; in the period of not quite two years from 1951 to the present day,


Parliament voted £10½ million. [AN HON. MEMBER:"Do not spoil it."] I am not trying to spoil anything, but only making it quite clear that I am going to vote against this Government because they have not done well enough, just as I voted against the Labour Government in 1949 for the same reason. No Government since the war have done what we asked they should do. They have all evaded the issue of raising the basic rate to a proper level to match the currency, and I shall have voted against both quite impartially. I shall go on fighting until I am satisfied either that the country is bust and cannot afford to do what is right or until it is done.
May I conclude by asking the House to help me to try to secure redress of these grievances during the life of this Parliament? Whatever happens today, let us from all sides of the House tell the Government that something like the Motion on the Order Paper in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) and some 70 or 80 other hon. Members is what we should like to see done. May we remember that, were it not that young men were willing, during two periods of great wars which occurred in the lifetime of many of us, to go into the Armed Forces of the Crown, sustained, of course, by the courage and goodwill of the people behind them, and to go out into distant and dangerous places, many of them, nay, all of them——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Member's speech, but it appears to go beyond the scope of the Motion before the House.

Sir I. Fraser: I was just bringing my speech to a conclusion, and I would not have thought that my sentence, when you had heard it concluded, would have offended you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because that is the last thing I should wish to do. I was going to say that perhaps we may remember that, had it not been for these young men, the administration of whose affairs we are now proposing to change, or whose Ministry the Government propose should be done away with, who went out with their faces to the foe or came back bearing their wounds courageously for the rest of their

days, there would be no free Parliament and there would be no free people. May I hope that Members of this House of all parties with their constituents behind them may try, during the lifetime of this Parliament, to make it clear to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he would have the country behind him if he put these men first in the nation's Treasury as I believe they are in the nation's heart.

7.50 p.m.

Mr. F. J. Bellenger: It must be quite obvious to the Government, from the restrained speech we have just listened to from the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser), one of their most faithful supporters, and from the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Isaacs), that there is a good deal of apprehension on both sides of the House at the change which the Government propose to make in amalgamating the Ministry of Pensions with the Ministry of National Insurance.
I do not apologise for the words which the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale has used in advocating the claims of a section of this community affected by these proposals. It is true that in the First World War most of the casualties were Service casualties, but since then we have had a second world war with civilian casualties from the same causes. There have been almost comparable feats of heroism among civilians engaged in combating the enemy.
Nevertheless, ex-Service men feel that the country called them specially in the country's hour of need both in the First World War and in the Second World War. It has been said that they are treated with some preference. The hon. Member, in his speech, referred to the evaporation of public sympathy for ex-Service personnel after wars finish. It is really remarkable how history repeats itself. Only a few days ago I was looking at an old Report of a Select Committee of the House on the training and employment of disabled ex-Service men, which reported in 1922. I came upon this paragraph which seems, almost in terms which are apposite today, to explain what the hon. Gentleman has


been saying to this House. It is from Command Paper 107, 1922, and it says:
It is obvious that the sentiment in favour of preferential treatment and general sympathy towards disabled ex-Service men is on the decline.
Whoever would have thought that the instrument for that today should be Her Majesty's Government, should be the Conservative Party which has always proclaimed so loudly that it is the ex-Service man's champion?
The report goes on to say:
The reduction in the number of firms on the King's Roll is evidence of that decline in public sympathy 
The Select Committee went on to say that if there were no possibility of getting fair treatment and employment for disabled ex-Service men by voluntary means the Government would have to apply compulsion. It is part of the Government's case that compulsion is there, because in 1944 the late Mr. Ernest Bevin took the step, which we all welcomed, of trying to put civilian disabled casualties on to the same basis as ex-Service casualties. But the House should note that in the Act preference was given to Service personnel, both men and women.
Whatever the Government may say tonight about their general intentions to give some preferential treatment to ex-Service men, if they effect this merger there will arise in the minds of ex-Service men—and I am one of them and there are many hon. Members in this House in the same position—the feeling that they will lose their preferential status. That was the feeling expressed by the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale and by the unanimous verdict of the British Legion which, in the main, represents ex-Service men and women.
When we come to examine the Government's proposals, I do not think we can be honestly concerned about the change they want to make in the machinery for the payment of pensions except in one respect which I shall mention in a few moments. I do not think that the ex-Service pensioner minds very much whether his pension is paid from Blackpool or from Newcastle so long as he gets it regularly. But there is this difference, that the pensioners of the First World War have life pensions, because

that was settled in 1920. The change was then made that where disability pensions were granted they were granted for life, and, therefore, those pensions can safely be handed over to the Ministry of National Insurance, because it is only an administrative matter of paying those pensions until the pensioner dies.
I believe I am correct, however, in saying, that in the Second World War that principle has not been accepted for disabled pensioners except in the case of amputations. Ex-Service personnel are not in the same position as the personnel from the First World War in the matter of life pensions. Those pensions are subject to review from time to time. If what I am saying is incorrect perhaps the Minister will correct me. What causes many of us apprehension is that these pensioners fear—and I consider not without justification—that their pensions can be reviewed by the Ministry of National Insurance and that they will be far more hardly treated than they would have been had they been dealt with by the Ministry of Pensions.

Mr. David Renton: Why?

Mr. Bellenger: Every hon. Member in this House, be he Conservative or Labour, knows well that generally speaking—and I say generally speaking—one could push a point furthest with the Ministry of Pensions than one could with any other Ministry.

Mr. Renton: No.

Mr. Bellenger: Whatever the reason was, one felt that if there was a chance of giving the claimant the benefit of the doubt the Ministry of Pensions was the Government Department that would do it. We are not sure, with all respect to the Ministry of National Insurance, that the same sympathetic treatment will be given to ex-Service claimants, either in regard to their pensions or their hospital treatment. In one respect I could only wish that the impact of the passing of the Ministry of Pensions and the handing over of the hospital part to the Ministry of Health would have the effect of bringing the standards of the Ministry of Health hospitals up to those prevailing in the Ministry of Pensions hospitals.
I believe, however, that the Ministry of Health hospitals are not today, despite


the effort which has been put into them, on the same level as the Ministry of Pensions hospitals. In the White Paper the Government referred to the international reputation of certain Ministry of Pensions hospitals and I think that is unchallengeable. Other nations have come here to look at certain Ministry of Pensions hospitals and have learned a great deal from them. I do not think that the Ministry of Health can lay claim to the same fame as can the Ministry of Pensions.
We feel, as no doubt hon. Gentlemen opposite feel and as is evidenced by the speech of the hon. Member for More-cambe and Lonsdale, that this step, although logically right and at some time appropriate, has been introduced so abruptly that it is the wrong time to do it. We feel that there must be other motives behind the policy of the Government than merely to save £500,000 a year. The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale has been Chairman of the British Legion and I suspect he is right when he says that this is a step to damp down the agitation which the British Legion have been making, much to the embarrassment of the Government, for better pensions.
I shall not argue that tonight because, obviously, I should be out of order. It must not be taken for granted that I always agree entirely with what the British Legion demands, but the fact remains that the British Legion speak, in the main, for a well-organised and loyal body of ex-Service men and women. During the war, under a Coalition Government, because we spoke with the same voice on both sides of the House we were able to get from the Government of the day and from the then Minister of Pensions that preferential treatment which the nation then thought was right but which, I regret to say, the nation is losing interest in now.
There are certain practices that have grown up since 1917 which will have to be looked after if this merger takes place. For instance, I believe there is a register of disabled ex-Service men and that the firms employing them are given preferential treatment in Government contracts by virtue of their membership of the King's National Roll. That used to be the case, at any rate, and I presume that

it still prevails because I see the seal on the note-paper of many contractors which indicates that they belong to the King's National Roll and without that I believe they are not entitled to be considered as Government contractors. Whether that is entirely so today or has been modified I do not know, but if that is so, how will this operate when there is a merger of the two Departments? Under the Disabled Persons Employment Act, 1944, civilian casualties are entitled to special treatment by virtue of their disability, and substantial employers of labour are compelled to take a certain percentage of their workpeople from the disabled persons. Will there be any difference between these two classes? Perhaps the Minister can tell me when he replies to the debate.
I do not go as far as some of my hon. Friends, who think that all Service pensions should be handed over to the Ministry of Pensions and, therefore, under the merger to the new Department. I believe that disability pensions are the province of the Ministry of Pensions, by whatever name they are called. However I do not believe that Service pensions for long service should be dealt with by anyone other than the Service Departments. I say that in case one of my hon. Friends who may speak later voices that point of view.
Neither do I believe that we should not keep in existence certain institutions such as the Royal Hospital, which deals with a particular class of long-service ex-Service pensioners. I believe that the ex-Service disability pensioner, because he needs hospital treatment as well, should have special consideration over and above the other disability pensioners in different classes of the community. In this connection I am not thinking so much of the widows or dependants because their case is more settled than that of the continuing ex-Service disability pensioner.
In conclusion, I regret very much that Her Majesty's Government have introduced this Motion, however logical it may be. It might be appropriate a few years hence, but it is certainly not so tonight and that is why I hope that my hon. Friends, and perhaps hon. Gentlemen opposite, will vote with me against the Government.

8.7 p.m.

Major H. Legge-Bourke: I had better begin by declaring four interests, first because I am an ex-Service man, secondly because I am a slightly disabled ex-Service man, thirdly because I am a member of the British Legion, and fourthly because I am Chairman of the Appeals Committee in the county in which I live for the Forces Help Society.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southwark (Mr. Isaacs) for having drawn the attention of the House to the fact that there are other societies than the British Legion who work for the ex-Service man, as well as the Ministry. That is not to say that we do not all appreciate enormously the work which the Ministry have done and which I am sure the new Ministry will continue doing. As the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the South African war, it is worth recalling that the Incorporated Soldiers and Sailors Help Society, as it was called in those days, was a forerunner of all the other ex-Service organisations by a long time. The work they do for the disabled, especially in the Lord Roberts Memorial Workshops, is probably unparalleled. Again, they have paid great attention to paraplegics and have a wonderful scheme for an electric clock assembly which has given those men new hope that no one expected when they were first injured.
I have not heard anything said in this debate so far which has not passed through my own mind since the introduction of the White Paper, except possibly the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) that some of the pensions might be paid through the Ministry of National Insurance and others might continue to be paid through the Ministry of Pensions. My immediate reaction to it is that I doubt whether it would be a practical proposition.
All of us who have an interest in this subject have naturally done a good deal of thinking since this White Paper was introduced. I could not support the Government tonight if I thought for one moment that as a result of what is being proposed the service which was rendered to disabled ex-Service men would be worse than it is today. The worst thing about this proposal is the actual wording

of the White Paper. The proposal itself is a sensible one, but I believe the Government have been so anxious not to over-state the case that they have understated the case for doing it. I believe that if the Government had come out straight away with a statement that it was their intention to improve the service being rendered to ex-Service men, and that after careful consideration they had decided this was the best way to do it, there would have been a very different reaction in the country. From what I have heard the Minister say elsewhere, and from what I have read of Government policy in this matter, I believe that is the intention of the Government.
The White Paper is a little halfhearted, to put it mildly. To say that in the long run we hope that an improvement may be achieved is hardly the stirring call to action one would hope would always be the sort of language coming from Ministers who have so close an experience with war.
I hope the House will forgive me if I say some things which, if I am stopped half-way through saying them, may be misconstrued. I should be grateful therefore if I may be allowed to complete my sentences, if not my paragraphs. What I am about to say is not very easy to do, particularly after we have listened to a speech such as was delivered by my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser).
There are few bodies in this country more ready to listen to wise leadership than the British Legion. In the criticism I am about to make I realise that my hon. Friend is not the first to deserve it. In fact, the Chairman is probably due for some criticism on this account. The immediate reaction of Legion Headquarters was not likely to lead to anything other than the eventual protest by the Legion against the whole of this amalgamation. The office holders at the head of the British Legion have an enormous responsibility as well as an enormous privilege. They have the responsibility for wise guidance. In this instance, I must confess that I think that they began by casting doubt which spread like wildfire throughout the whole Legion. As a result, we had at the conference a condemnation of the Government's proposals; whereas I believe that if only the leadership had been a little more


thoughtful in the first instance, and if only one or two people had thought a little longer before they said anything, we might have had the Legion sincerely behind the Government——

Mr. A. C. Manuel: Ridiculous.

Major Legge-Bourke: —in their effort to do what I am quite convinced the Government are trying to do, and that is to improve the service rendered to ex-Service men.

Mr. Manuel: rose——

Major Legge-Bourke: I will give way in a moment.
I have read the speech made by my hon. Friend which is reported in the current issue of the British Legion Journal. However much he may have thought he was being absolutely fair, there was only one thing that I and others could be led to believe, that the senior officers of the Legion were advising the Legion to resist—[HON. MEMBERS: "Of course."] I am quite prepared to believe that an enormous number of members of the British Legion, when this was first published, had grave doubts. I was one of them. At the very beginning I had grave doubts. It was only after the most careful consideration, and after asking questions particularly of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance—he will remember the conversation on the subject—that I began to realise there was a great chance of an improved service coming out of this.
I am staking my political future on that. If I felt for one moment that this scheme was likely to reduce the service rendered to ex-Service men, I should not hesitate to vote against the Government for one moment. If I support the Gov-ernnment tonight and there is a falling off of that service—I am prepared to stake my political future on this—I would not come into this House deliberately to betray the ex-Service men. If I came here for nothing else. I would come to ensure that ex-Service men, especially Regular soldiers, should have someone here who was interested in their welfare.

Mr. Manuel: Is not the hon. and gallant Member being a little unfair to the leadership of the British Legion, to their integrity and loyalty? When they

took the course they did, it was because of their knowledge that the chief reason for the change was the saving in actual money of £500,000. Therefore the claim for improvement is a secondary consideration. It is hoped it will come about, but there is no guarantee.

Major Legge-Bourke: I am quite prepared to see the point of view of the hon. Member. But I want to say that it was inevitable that the moment these proposals were put before the country ex-Service men would have many doubts. Because of that, and mainly because of that, it was, as I say, the paramount duty of the leadership to make certain before they said anything that they were quite sure they were saying the right thing.

Mr. Manuel: So they were.

Major Legge-Bourke: I do not deny for a moment that the first reaction of the leaders of the Legion was similar to the first reaction of the humblest member. I say that when one is the leader of an organisation of the size of the Legion one has greater obligations than merely expressing the opinion of the most humble member. One has the obligation of leading, and leading in the way one thinks to be right after careful consideration—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may interrupt me, but I am going to stick to this because I feel very strongly about it.
This was an issue so important that inevitably it would rouse feeling in the Legion, and it was of the utmost importance that nothing should be said until it was quite certain that what was being said was right. It sometimes happens that the first reaction is not the right one. It sometimes happens that if an opinion is expressed upon the first reaction it is impossible to withdraw from it. I honestly believe that something very much like that has happened in this instance.

Sir I. Fraser: If my hon. and gallant Friend will allow me one observation, I would say that the announcement was made in February and that I made only one brief observation by way of leading opinion, as he alleges, when I said in this House, "By their fruits shall ye know them." That was addressed to the Government Front Bench.
It was not until after the Budget, after three months, that I began to harden


in the view that the Government had not done what we wanted and that this was a way of making it more difficult for us to obtain what we wanted. Then I began to make it clear where I stood in the matter. In the meantime opinion was welling up all over the country. I did not lead it, I just listened to it.

Major Legge-Bourke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for saying what he has said. I think I made it clear that he was not the first officer of the Legion who expressed himself about it. In fact the person who did is a great personal friend of mine. But I still feel that what I have said has a element of truth in it and only the Legion officers themselves really know how true or how false this is. As a member of the Legion and as an hon. Member of this House I can only express what I feel.
My hon. Friend the Member for More-cambe and Lonsdale has referred to the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper which was signed by 70 hon. Members from all parties. There is only one aspect of that Motion which I think it would be in order for me to discuss. I should like to read the terms of the Motion to refresh the memory of the House. It is headed:
Priority of relief for war-disabled ex-Service men and their widows 
and it states:
That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government at an early date to take a further step beyond that taken in 1952 to accord to disabled ex-officers and men of the two world wars and their widows that priority of relief to which their sacrifices entitle them.
Priority of relief has many aspects. It would be wrong for me tonight to discuss the financial aspect, and I do not propose to do so, but I say that priority of relief also involves an adequate machinery of relief. Unless we are absolutely certain that the proposal of the Government will give priority of relief to ex-Service men, I would say that any hon. Member who complimented me by signing that Motion ought to vote against the Government.
After all the inquiries I have made and all I have heard from the Ministers themselves, I am absolutely satisfied that it is their intention——

Mr. H. Hynd: What did they tell you?

Major Legge-Bourke: —that priority of relief should be given. I ask the House to believe that I have taken considerable trouble to assure myself of this. If I were not sure I should not hesitate to say so. I am absolutely certain in my own mind that it is the intention of the Government to ensure not merely that the priority that ex-Service men get now is continued but that it is improved as the years go by.

Mr. Hynd: I signed the Motion and I am concerned about this. When the hon. and gallant Gentleman persuaded me to sign the Motion asking for priority of relief for ex-Service men, I certainly did not understand the position in that context. Is he satisfied as a result of his consideration that when the Government are actually imposing priority of economy on ex-Service men that is consistent with the priority of relief that he and I and other hon. Members ask for in that Motion?

Major Legge-Bourke: To start with, I do not accept that the Government are insisting on priority of economy on ex-Service men.

Mr. Hynd: They are.

Major Legge-Bourke: I do not accept that. The hon. Gentleman quite fairly has said that he did not consider that a priority of economy on ex-Service men was consistent with my Motion. I agree, but I do not consider that the economies in this proposal by the Government will be made at the expense of the ex-Service men.

Mr. Manuel: Of course they will.

Major Legge-Bourke: If I did I should certainly be in sympathy with the hon. Member.

Mr. Hynd: That is the reason for the proposal.

Major Legge-Bourke: If I did I should not hesitate to vote against the proposal. But the economies are being made in the Civil Service—in the Department itself.

Mr. Hynd: At the expense of ex-Service men.

Major Legge-Bourke: If the hon. Member has taken the trouble to read the White Paper, and I hope that he has, he will have seen that there has been some run-down in the Ministry of Pensions


itself. Certain duties are becoming more and more the duties of other Ministries. Surely we ought not to be so rigid and hidebound in our outlook that we can never change anything connected with the services for ex-Service men. We want to be sure that the best possible service is being rendered. I am convinced from every inquiry I have made and from all the thought I have given to the matter—and I assure hon. Members that it has been considerable—that there will be an improvement.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcos Lipton: What improvement?

Major Legge-Bourke: In the service rendered to ex-Service men.

Mr. Manuel: In what way?

Major Legge-Bourke: In particular, I ask hon. Members to read again paragraph 21 of the White Paper. My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale said that it was not necessary to have local offices because we have already got the local service branches of Legion. My feeling is that the quicker action is taken, the better. I am sure that the average service branch, certainly in the area in which I move mostly in Legion affairs, takes a good deal longer in these matters than ought the Ministry of National Insurance offices which are well placed to take up these matters. It is on that assumption that I am pleased about the proposal in paragraph 21.
I believe that if we can get the Ministry on the spot as close to the actual need as possible, we shall tend to get that humanitarian feeling which is absolutely necessary if we are to deal properly with the welfare aspect.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman saying that the present Ministry of Pensions is such that one does not get speedy replies?

Major Legge-Bourke: I am not saying that, but I do not say that conditions may not be made any better. Everybody knows that the officers of the Ministry of Pensions have done wonderful service. Nobody denies that; but they will not disappear. All that will happen will be that there will be more of them. Other men as well as them are to be trained to deal with disabled ex-Service men nearer to their homes. That is part of

the policy. If I am wrong I hope that the Minister will tell me. It is on this assumption that I am so greatly impressed by the scheme.

Mr. Ellis Smith: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is trying to ride two horses at once.

Major Legge-Bourke: The hon. Member has just said that I am trying to ride two horses at once.

Mr. Mellish: Gordon Richards cannot do that.

Major Legge-Bourke: I could give a jocular reply, because there was a time when I found it difficult enough to ride even one horse.
I have given an assurance, and I hope that by now hon. Members know me well enough to realise that when I make a pledge of some sort in this House I usually try to keep it. I have already half-made the pledge that I intend to make before I sit down. Perhaps the hon. Member has given me a lead. I give an assurance that, if it can be shown that as a result of this proposal by the Government the service to ex-Service men has deteriorated, I shall have no hesitation whatever in leaving the Conservative Party—absolutely none.
I came into this House with one main purpose in mind. It was to ensure that disabled ex-Service men, especially ex-Regular soldiers, had somebody who was prepared to stand up for them occasionally. I came into this House with that object more than any other in my mind. I assure hon. Members on both sides of the House that if the Government let me down on this matter I certainly shall not hesitate to dissociate myself from them in future.
I am backing the Government tonight because I believe that what they are proposing is a sensible, practical and humane plan. If it turns out that it is a money-saver without any regard for the future of the disabled men themselves, if it results in a falling off of the standard of care given to ex-Service men, I shall not hesitate to cast scorn upon those in whom I put my trust tonight.

8.29 p.m.

Mr. Percy Collick: I oppose the proposal to merge the Ministry of Pensions with the Ministry of National Insurance. The test which hon.


Members ought to apply to it is whether it will result in an improvement to ex-Service men or not. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) has staked his reputation and political future on the assumption that the proposals will benefit ex-Service men. He does his Front Bench less than justice by presuming that if they thought so they would have any doubt about saying so. There is no suggestion in the White Paper that the proposals are to benefit ex-Service men.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked my hon. Friends whether they had read the White Paper, but he might have asked himself whether he had done so.

Major Legge-Bourke: If the hon. Gentleman had been here when I began my speech he would have heard me say that I thought that the worst part of the proposals was the way the White Paper was drafted and that it gave an entirely false impression of what the Government intend to do.

Mr. Collick: I was here when the hon. and gallant Gentleman began to speak, and I also heard the Leader of the House open the debate. I wish the hon. and gallant Gentleman had been here when the Leader of the House opened the debate.

Major Legge-Bourke: I was.

Mr. Collick: I did not see the hon. and gallant Gentleman then, but I accept that he was here if he says so. If he was here, can he tell me that he was convinced by a single word that the Leader of the House addressed to us that the proposals are to benefit ex-Service men?

Major Legge-Bourke: My right hon. Friend made it perfectly clear at the beginning of his speech that he was dealing merely with the machinery of Government side of the problem and that his colleagues on the Front Bench would answer detailed questions about the work of the Ministry.

Mr. Collick: I am confirmed in my belief that the hon. and gallant Gentleman was not convinced—nor was I—by anything that the Lord Privy Seal said, that the proposals will benefit ex-Service men. I cannot imagine that any hon.

Member, not even the most rabid Tory, was convinced, after listening attentively to what the Lord Privy Seal said, that the proposals were to benefit ex-Service men.
The White Paper specifically states, in paragraph 3, the Government's reasons for abolishing the Ministry of Pensions. The first reason is to simplify the machinery of Government, and the second is to reduce the costs. Those were the two purposes for which the Government have brought forward the proposals, and the Lord Privy Seal spent almost the bulk of his time in dealing with the first, the simplification of the machinery of Government.
Let us be honest about it. I do not believe that ex-Service men care very much about the simplification of the machinery of Government. What they are concerned about are the results, and they will judge the proposals, as will the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has staked his political future on this issue, by the results. We shall have occasion, in the future, to remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman of the pledge which, in perfect honesty I am sure, he has made.
The Lord Privy Seal ought not to be allowed to get away with all the things he said this afternoon about the simplification of the machinery of Government. The House ought to do itself the justice of examining for a moment the implications of what the Lord Privy Seal said. No one would disagree with the Lord Privy Seal when he says that it is the function of any Government periodically to review governmental machinery and to consider what improvements can be made. We are told that the Government have done that, and we are also told that it was in the process of doing that that the Government came to the conclusion that the Ministry of Pensions should be abolished.
We should like to know a little more about what other decisions might have been come to about the machinery of Government. The Lord Privy Seal went on to give the impression—I imagine hon. Members might well have had the impression—that the Ministry of Pensions is one of the smallest Departments of the Government. Nothing of the kind. Anybody who cares to make himself familiar with the facts will know that according


to the staff figures published by the Government, the Ministry of Pensions now has a staff of well over 9,000. That is not a small Government Department, as Government Departments go.
Let us have a look at some of the others. If we take the Ministry of Fuel and Power we find that the staff of that Ministry is not 9,000, but 2,740.

Mr. Renton: Will the hon. Gentleman——

Mr. Collick: No, I am not giving way for the moment.
Why, for example, did not the Lord Privy Seal tell us why the Government had not decided to abolish the Ministry of Fuel and Power, which is a tiny Government Department with a staff of only 2,740? By what logic do the Government abolish the Ministry of Pensions which has a staff of 9,000, and, at the same time, retain in existence the Ministry of Fuel and Power which has a staff of, roughly, 2,700? Why not, for example, merge that Ministry with the Ministry of Transport?
If we are so concerned about the machinery of Government and all the rest of it, let us take another example. The total staff of the Ministry of Health amounts to 3,220 and that of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to 3,200. If we are to have a lot of merging of Departments, we might eliminate the Minister of Health and put him in with the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
Once we start examining this machinery of Government business, the onus devolves on the Government, and the onus will be on the Minister, when he replies tonight, to tell the House why it becomes so imperative at this time to abolish the Ministry of Pensions which has a staff of 9,000 and why, at the same time, they are perfectly willing to carry a Minister in a Ministry of Fuel and Power which has a staff of only 2,740.
So much for the issue of the machinery of Government. It has been suggested that this proposal is necessary in order to reduce costs. When the Prime Minister was asked, at the time that he made his first announcement on the subject in this House, what the saving would amount to, he did not know. He could not even give an answer. Therefore,

it was abundantly clear that at that time the figure was not known because, otherwise, it would obviously have been in the Prime Minister's brief.
One would have expected that at the time the right hon. Gentleman made his statement he would have been able to tell us what the saving in cost would amount to, but he was not able to do so. When we insisted on a White Paper, we at last got the information that on certain assumptions we might in three years hence—not now—save £500,000. We are going to save that at the expense of the ex-Service men, while at the same time we can have a Budget of £1,400,000 with which to fight the next war.

Mr. Renton: Nonsense.

Mr. Collick: It does not need an Oxford education to say "nonsense." An elementary schoolboy could put it better than that. If the hon. Gentleman will look at his White Paper, he will see that the figure is given in it. If he says "nonsense," it is the Government's nonsense and not mine.
In paragraph 33, the White Paper says:
The immediate saving will not be large but …
Then, in the last sentence, speaking of savings, it says:
Within the next two or three years these should be of the order of £500,000 a year.
"Two or three years," and "these should be," it says—perhaps. An hon. Gentleman opposite allows himself to believe that these savings will be for the benefit of the ex-Service man. He is the only ex-Service man I have heard say so. I have discussed it with hundreds of them and I have had resolutions from ex-Service men's organisations in my constituency. I recall when the hon. and gallant Gentleman on our Front Bench who will be winding up for this side, and I, started an ex-Service men's organisation after the First World War. We were on pensions committees at the time and I remember the sort of thing we had to deal with and the fight we had to put up against the Government of the day to get elementary justice. What have we today? We have in being a Ministry of Pensions which has created a reputation unequalled by that of any Government Department at any time in the history of this country. Does any hon. Gentleman want to deny it?

Mr. Renton: Yes. I consider that the Ministry of National Insurance has, on balance, put up a very much better performance during the last five years.

Mr. Collick: The hon. Gentleman, as a National-Liberal-Conservative-Unionist Member, and all the rest of it, can hold that opinion, but I do not think it is shared by anybody on this side of the House. Any Member of Parliament who attends to his constituency work must recognise that the Ministry of Pensions has established for itself, in the hearts and minds of the ex-Service men anyhow, a reputation which no other Government Department has. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wilfred Paling) has certainly played his part in bringing that reputation about, and succeeding Ministers have followed on.
We have a Ministry of Pensions now who even ask people, "Are you sure you are getting all you are entitled to?" That is the sort of thing the welfare officers ask men now. Is that why the Government want to abolish the Ministry? Look at the marvellous work the Ministry have done on this business on artificial limbs. I believe that the work has no equal anywhere. I have been with doctors, and other professional people who know this part of the work, and who can almost pick out in the street an artificial limb that was made at Roe-hampton and one that was made by private enterprise. [HON. MEMBERS:"Oh."] Yes, and other people have had the same experience. The simple fact is that the Ministry of Pensions stand on their own record and ought to continue. Without any question I say that the Government have failed completely to make out a case for its abolition.
I have a word to say to the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely. We are told in the White Paper that the Ministry of Pensions has 80 offices in various parts of the country while the Ministry of National Insurance have 900 offices. The inference is that because of those 900 offices the ex-Service man will in some mystical way get greater benefit. What nonsense any such suggestion is. Everybody knows that a welfare officer is attached to every one of these 80 Ministry of Pensions offices, and any hon. Member who is doing his constituency

job knows the admirable work these men have done.
What is to be the position now? Are we to have a welfare officer attached to each of these 900 offices instead of the 80? If so, the Minister can lose his £500,000 right away. It goes immediately if he appoints welfare officers to the 900 National Insurance offices, and bang goes the one basis of authority for this proposal—the saving of £500,000. Apparently we are to have an additional Parliamentary Secretary, but the Minister goes and so the saving is on the Minister's salary.
I hope that the Minister will realise that no case has been made for this proposal. I believe that he is rightly proud of his connection with the Boy Scouts. One of the mottoes of the Boy Scout movement is, "Do a good turn every day." I say to the Minister with the utmost respect that he is not doing a very good one today. I suggest that before he finishes his speech tonight he should do the one good turn that he can do, that is, to withdraw the White Paper and the Motion on the Order Paper. There may well come a time when there may be no longer a case for a Ministry of Pensions but it is not now. It may be four or five years hence or any number of years that one may like to name, but while it is necessary to have a staff of 9,000 people to deal with pension problems that is not the time to abolish this Ministry.
I thought that it was the Ministry of Food that was going to commit suicide first. It is the Minister of Food who has been telling us that he wants to be in a position to liquidate himself, as it were. I am sorry that the Minister of Pensions wants to put himself out of existence before the Minister of Food, for if this proposal goes forward the Ministry of Pensions ceases to be on 31st August. I say, frankly and bluntly, that it is a positive scandal that the Government should bring forward a proposal of this kind without any real basis for it. No wonder that all ex-Service men are opposed to it. The British Legion and all other ex-Service organisations of which I know are opposed to it. I hope that hon. Members opposite will join the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser), and I hope that the


hon. and gallant Member for Isle of Ely will have second thoughts before the end of the debate and will join us in the Lobby against the proposals.

8.49 p.m.

Mr. David Renton: The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Collick) said something a little unkind about my being at an ancient university. I suggest to him that, although I might have been a much nicer chap if I had been an engine driver, he probably would have been a more tolerant one if he had been a member of that university.
Probably the primary object of the Government in bringing forward this proposal was to save money and simplify administration. The hon. Member would probably agree with me that, leaving aside other factors for a moment, those two things in themselves are quite laudable public objects. He would probably also agree that this is a logical development—something which was bound to happen in the end—and that it is largely a question of timing.
When one contemplates that at the time when the Ministry of Pensions was first introduced there was no comprehensive State National Insurance scheme, whereas there is one now, it is reasonable to assume that sooner or later the two organisations could very well be fused, if they had both been a success, or even if one had been a little more successful than the other. I want to say a word or two about that, because my experience—which is eight years; not very long, but something—as a Member of Parliament for a biggish rural constituency has caused me to feel much greater satisfaction with the treatment I have received from the Ministry of National Insurance under Governments of both parties than that which I have received from the Ministry of Pensions.
I should like to give an example.

Mr. Ellis Smith: An isolated case.

Mr. Renton: It is not an isolated one. In this case it was pretty obvious that the Service man was entitled to better treatment than he was receiving. It took me three years to get it. Many, many letters did I have to write, first to the Parliamentary Secretary in the previous Government, and later to my hon. and gallant Friend and, if the House would

not consider me immodest—I am not trying to make a personal point but merely to explain my case—when eventually I did succeed, my hon. and gallant Friend complimented me upon my persistence in going for his Ministry in this case.
Further, there is a body called the Pensions Appeal Tribunal. If every laudable statement which has been made about the Ministry of Pensions tonight had been true, there would have been no need for the sometimes very strenuous wrangles which the Pensions Tribunal have had to listen to. Sometimes that tribunal has merely to decide difficult technical points, about which there can be an honest difference of opinion between officials and lawyers or between the Legion and the Ministry, but that is not true of all cases.

Mr. Wigg: Does the hon. Member know that the administration of National Insurance is simply littered with cases before appeal tribunals?

Mr. Renton: I am only giving evidence, as other hon. Members have done. If that is so, it has not been my experience. There is a further reason why I believe the Government have reached the right conclusion in deciding as they have done. In the county of Huntingdon there is no Ministry of Pensions office. There is an office of the Ministry of National Insurance in the county town, and the local people have established contact with the officials there. When somebody has asked me about his pension, even on meeting me in the street, I have been able to say, "Let us go along and see the Ministry of National Insurance." On going there we have had very courteous, efficient and sympathetic treatment. One cannot say that with regard to the Ministry of Pensions. The nearest Ministry of Pensions offices are 15 or 20 miles away, in Cambridge and Bedford.
With this network of 900 Ministry of National Insurance offices spread over the country, and only 80 Ministry of Pensions offices, we are bound to find that many of the war pensioners have no office within a short distance, in a place to which they are regularly accustomed to go, such as their own market town. They can, however, go to a Ministry of National Insurance. That makes a very great difference.
Hon. Members may say, "Could not we let the war pensioners walk into the Ministry of National Insurance Offices? "I do not know whether they do or not; but I assume that, if they did so, the official in the Ministry of National Insurance would say, "It is not our responsibility, but we will pass your complaint to some more distant persons whose responsibility it is." If we achieve only the result that all the Ministry of National Insurance offices—900 of them all over the country—will throw open their doors to pensioners, and that their officials will be responsible for dealing with these cases, then we shall indeed have achieved something by this merger.
I have one suggestion to make. The Ministry of Pensions officials have a special experience in dealing with these cases. When the details of the merger are worked out, I want my right hon. Friend to ensure that in every pensions office in the country—Pensions and National Insurance Offices they will be called—there is at least one official who has this special war pensions experience. If that is done, I think it will be very helpful.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Where will they live?

Mr. Renton: That is a very poor point. I should be out of order if I were to say that it is now a bit easier for officials to decide where to live than it was a year or two ago. This is a problem which, unfortunately, civil servants in regional offices have to face. Constant changes take place all the time, and that has always been the case in the public service.
May I say a word about the hospital and treatment side of the matter? Here again, I speak only with the knowledge of my constituency and of the Eastern Region. I have made inquiries and I find that there is only one Ministry of Pensions hospital in the whole of the Eastern Region, and inquiries I have made of the Regional Hospital Board indicate that, as far as they know, that Ministry of Pensions hospital will continue to be staffed and managed after the merger by the same people as at present.
Now here is a very interesting point. Under the National Health Service, that Regional Hospital Board have for some years been looking after hundreds of war

pensioners; and, as far as I know, they have been doing so to the satisfaction of all concerned. If hon. Members look at paragraph 6 on page 4 of the White Paper, they will see that during 1949–1950 nearly 49,000 pensioners received in-patient treatment for their disabilities, 21,000 in the Ministry of Pensions hospitals and 28,000 in other hospitals. Already, therefore, a great deal of the praise which has been lavishly bestowed upon the Ministry of Pensions in this debate should be attributed in part, and indeed in very great part, to the Ministry of Health.
Like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke), I am an ex-Service man and a keen member of the British Legion. Like him, I have made a point in election addresses and so on that I would do my best to watch the interests of ex-Service men, and I hope I have not failed in that duty. It is in the light of my personal experience in my constituency, and in the light of the examination of these proposals, which I, too, have considered carefully, that I support the Government, not merely because this is a measure of economy and simplicity of administration, which are in themselves good things, not merely because this is a logical step which, to my mind, the time has now come to take, but also because, as a result of the taking of that step, I do most sincerely believe that ex-Service men will get more ready administration in their difficulties than they have so far had.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) started off by amazing the House with a unique experience—his statement that it was easier to deal with the Ministry of National Insurance than with the Ministry of Pensions. However, that unique experience became understandable when he displayed the depths of his ignorance of the working of both those Ministries. However, I do not propose to follow him. We realise that he is a National-Liberal with certain special difficulties, and we let it pass at that.
I turn now to what I believe was the sincere, if misguided, speech of the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke). I am very sorry that he is not in his place. One of the


things he said was, quite emphatically, this, "I shall vote for this because I am convinced that it will preserve priority of relief for the ex-Service men." Because of that I want to ask a specific question of the Minister of Health, or, as the Minister is not here at the moment, of the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary.
In her hospitals is there to be a class of patients with priority of relief and another class of patients with second-class treatment? Is that the intention? Is there to be one group with first-class and another group with second-class treatment? Or are all to be treated not as pensioners but as patients, and each given the best that is available? Would the hon. Lady care to answer?
The answer, quite simply, is this, that in her hospitals patients will be treated equally as patients, and that once the hospitals are merged into the Ministry any question of priority of relief disappears. Is it not so? Would the hon. Lady care to say?

Mr. Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order. Is it not better if hon. Members adhere to the correct rules of debate and put their points and have them answered at the end?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and learned Member is making his own speech.

Mr. Paget: I can understand these attempts to try to save the Treasury Bench embarrassment, but the answer is a perfectly simple one. The hon. Lady did not have to give it. I gave it for her.

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Heath-coat Amory): I have had discussions with my right hon. Friend on this point, and shall be dealing with that in my remarks at the end of the debate.

Mr. Paget: Will those remarks include the statement that from now on, under the National Health Service, there are to be treated two classes of patients, one with first-class treatment, and the other with second-class treatment?

Mr. Amory: I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will stay until the end of the debate and hear what I have to say.

Mr. Paget: Then I shall be denied the opportunity of answering. I would much

rather have the answer now. I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's position. I know that he hates this Motion as much as I do. I know that it is only the great loyalty which he possesses which induces him to be here at all.
Having, perhaps, extracted the answer which will decide the vote of the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely, I want now to say a word about the speech of the hon. Member for More-cambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser). I think that every one of us was deeply impressed by the sincerity and courage of that speech. It is not an easy thing to vote against one's Government. I have done it, and I know that one does not like breaking with the loyalties of one's friends. One dislikes even more having to go into the Lobby with one's opponents when, as so often happens, one may doubt very much their sincerity on the real issue. I hope very much that he may be saved that experience and that the Government will bow to the clear and overwhelming feeling on both sides of this House that their proposal is premature, because it has been quite obvious in this debate, except for a few lone voices, that the overwhelming feeling of the House is against them, and for this reason.
The Leader of the House said that the Prime Minister had said that he would not for one moment persist in this proposal if he was not entirely convinced that he regarded it as a matter of honour that the treatment of these people should not be allowed to deteriorate. Let us make this clear. The treatment of ex-Service men, of pensioners, of injured people and, above all, of orphans is not something which can be expressed in £ s. d. It is not expressed simply in material benefits, but in personal relations and friendships. It is that friendship which the Ministry of Pensions have created for their beneficiaries. It is a personal thing coming from personal individuals in that Ministry and inspired by them.
I am a foster parent of two of the wards of the Ministry. As a customer, if I may put it in those terms, I have been in close personal contact with the Ministry. It has been mentioned that the civil servants in that Ministry have subscribed each Christmas to send a charming present to my two children, not from any


public funds but from their own pockets. It is that personal relationship with these deprived children which is so vitally important.
An orphan always runs the risk of developing an inadequate personality. He or she has not, generally speaking, that stability and security which is the basis of the satisfactory development of a child. That stability and security has to be created. Not every foster home is satisfactory. A number of these orphans, as the Ministry can tell us, have to be moved from foster home to foster home. The children who are moved tend to be the most awkward ones, whose personalities are least satisfactory, and their link with reality, their anchor and their security is in one particular person—the children's officer.
The children's officers of the Ministry have, in my experience, and I have met them in my constituency, at Portsmouth and in London, been absolutely outstanding people, dedicated to their work. What has happened with regard to staff economy? These officers, I believe, in almost every case were temporary civil servants—temporary executive officers. To the children, they are substitute parents. They are the people who have always been there, the ones to protect them; they are their link with reality, but, to a Minister, they are redundant civil servants.
I would ask this particular question. How many of these experienced children's officers—those who have brought up these war orphans—are being retained? Is even one of them being retained? Are not all, in fact, being got rid of for reasons of stark economy, because the temporary civil servant must go first? What are the qualifications of the new children's officers, other than that they are permanent civil servants?
I take particular examples. The magnificent officer who has looked after my children in London—I will not mention her name, because I think it is contrary to custom—is she being retained or has she to go? What about Portsmouth? Which of these people who came up with the children during the war are going? Is it not vital at this time that that link should not be broken? These war orphans are growing up, and many of them are girls. They pass out of the

immediate wardship of the Ministry, but, none the less, they keep the contact which is the one substitute for relations. It is the one link with security in their lives, and it is suddenly now being taken away. Can we have the figures of the periods of service of the children's officers? How many have gone in the past year or are due to go next year? I should very much like to know.
That is the position as I understand it, and it is an injury to ex-Service men, because they will no longer receive the priority of service which they have received. The prestige of being treated specially is to go, but I will say that those two things are of trifling importance compared with the breaking of the link of friendship, which is what is going to happen as a result of stark economy. That is more important than anything which money can buy, and it is to retain this link that I hope that the stark economy may be reconsidered.

9.14 p.m.

Mr. F. A. Burden: I think that most hon. Members have been impressed with the deep feeling and sense of responsibility that has been shown in this debate. It is curious that there is such a sharp division of opinion on this new proposal, because it is perfectly evident that, on both sides of the House, we are in complete agreement that, as far as is within our power, we intend to do one thing—to preserve the pensions services to those who have suffered injury in war; and I am sure that all of us look upon those people as among our first charges.
In common with hon. Members on both sides, I can speak very strongly, because I have been sitting with them in the Minister's Advisory Committee on several occasions, and I can say that we are as one in our desire to afford the utmost service to those who have suffered as a result of the disasters that have overtaken mankind twice in my lifetime. I am particularly interested because I have the honour of serving a constituency which has great naval traditions, and I am often called upon to deal with cases of disabled ex-Service men who have suffered in war. I have no doubt that a large number of hon. Members in this House, whether they represent naval constituencies, garrison towns or even sparsely-populated districts, have been brought


face to face with the tragedy of the ex-Service man and his dependants. Therefore, we find ourselves on common ground tonight because we are trying to do our best for them.
Concern has been expressed in the debate, on this side particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke), about these proposals, which will result in the Ministry of Pensions going out of existence on 31st August. But I feel that many of the fears that have been expressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite are rather problematical.
I say quite frankly and emphatically that if I did not feel that the future of the disabled ex-Service man would be as good under the new arrangement as it was under the old, then I should not hesitate tonight to go into the Lobby and vote against the Government. I believe that it is the bounden duty of every hon. Member to ensure that the future of the ex-Service man is preserved and his rights assured. I am an ex-Service man myself and I prefer to wait and see.

Mr. Percy Shurmer: It will be too late then.

Mr. Burden: If the hon. Member wishes to speak, I have no doubt he will be able to catch Mr. Speaker's eye and put his point to the House. If he does not I hope he will allow me to make mine.
I say this, that if I find—and I have no doubt I am speaking for many of my right hon. and hon. Friends on this side of the House—that as a result of this new arrangement the priorities that we consider are the right of the disabled ex-Service men are not being considered, then we shall make clear to the Government how strongly we disapprove of this scheme.

Mr. Shurmer: It will be too late.

Mr. Burden: I would remind hon. Members opposite that many of the prophecies they made in the past two years have been proved utterly wrong.

Mr. Shurmer: Tell us one.

Mr. Burden: The warmongering prophecies.
It is just as true in this case that they will be proved equally wrong. If, in fact, it is true that as a result of this move there is a decline in the service—[HON. MEMBERS:"Oh."] If the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene I will gladly give way to him, but if not, I ask him to let me continue. Surely what we all want to see is that the service rendered to the ex-Service man is maintained at its present level.
I do not believe that the disabled ex-Service men themselves care one way or another as long as that is the case. I am sure that if they find that as a result of this new arrangement their services will be as good as they are today, or indeed better, they will be perfectly satisfied. If those services can be retained at their present level, and, at the same time, some economy can be made in the persons administering those services, that will be in the general interest of the country.
What are the priorities? I believe it to be important that men who have suffered injury shall receive the utmost consideration, shall appear to receive it at all times, and shall know that they are receiving it. When I say "consideration" I do not merely mean the treatment they will receive, but the retention of the welfare services that have been performed by the pensions welfare officers. Those men have called upon the pensioners and have advised them as to their rights under the Pensions Act and have been able, in many instances, to help them in difficulties arising in their home life because of their injuries which, in many cases, have caused psychological difficulties. Perhaps the services of the Ministry of Health might be made more available in that capacity and be of even greater assistance than the services of the Ministry of Pensions at the moment.
If we can ensure that under the new arrangement men who need hospitalisation can have it with the utmost speed and efficiency, as is the case at present, then I believe that they will not lose but may gain by the proposed arrangement, especially if out-patient treatment can be made readily available to them in the Ministry of Health hospitals. If we can be assured that the pensions tribunals which will still remain in being will give them the same opportunities for appeal as they have today and will work as impartially, they will lose nothing. If we


can make sure that the payment of pensions will be as liberal as it is today, then I do not believe they will lose through the change. I believe that it will be more than ever necessary that the Parliamentary Secretary, who will be specifically enjoined to care for the interests of and to preserve the right of pensioners, shall ensure that he has their interests at heart. I hope that we shall have at the Ministry such a Parliamentary Secretary.
I do not believe that this House is concerned with anything other than that, by this new service, pensioners shall receive the rights and privileges to which they are entitled. We regret the passing of the Ministry of Pensions, but the disabled ex-Service man will find a new friend under the new system. Perhaps in a year from now when the first reports are made we shall not look back upon this as a retrograde step, but as a forward step. Hon. Members on this side of the House will watch this experiment with anxious and critical eyes. We shall do our utmost to ensure that it works in the way the Government wish from the point of view of administration and that the rights and privileges to which ex-Service men are entitled are also preserved.

9.26 p.m.

Mr. George Chetwynd: I do not wish to follow the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden), except to say that once the present Ministry of Pensions has died it will take more than the future tears of the hon. Member to bring it back to life. I regret that the Lord Privy Seal is not present to listen to this debate. He is the only person on the Government Front Bench with the authority to withdraw this Order immediately.
He sought at the beginning to justify his case by saying it was merely an organisational problem. The speeches of my right hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Isaacs), the hon. and gallant Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Collick) have shown that we are dealing with human beings and not merely with an organisational problem.
I wish to limit my remarks to the question of the future of Queen Mary's Roe-hampton Hospital. I declare my interest,

as I am Chairman of the Governors of that hospital and on the board I have the very willing support of the hon. and gallant Member for Merton and Morden (Captain Ryder). Queen Mary's Hospital occupies a special place in the treatment of ex-Service men, and I think it would be right if I gave, in a little more detail, an account of its functions.
It is a charitable trust founded in 1915 as a convalescent hospital for sailors, soldiers and airmen who lost their limbs in the first war. From 1919, in association with the Ministry of Pensions, and after 1925 under the terms of an agreement with that Ministry, this hospital has developed into the foremost hospital in the world for the treatment of limbless ex-Service men. Moreover, a research centre has been established there which has an international reputation, and there is also a limb-making factory and an excellent limb-fitting centre. This combination makes Queen Mary's Roehamp-ton Hospital deserving of the very special consideration of this House.
The primary object of the hospital, as stated by the Charity Commissioners, is:
To provide and maintain a hospital which shall be used primarily for the treatment of disabled sailors, soldiers and airmen and to make provision for the fitting, repair and renewal of artificial limbs.
Throughout we must stress the priority given in this hospital for that category of persons. But there is an obligation to treat any civilians who need artificial limbs and many of them are receiving that treatment. Further, it is the duty of the hospital governors to arrange for the manufacture of artificial limbs. The governors have agreed with the Ministry of Pensions that so long as priority was given to the needs of limbless ex-Service men beds could be used for other medical and surgical cases belonging to the Ministry of Pensions. I should like to say that there has been the utmost friendliness and co-operation between the governors, the Minister of Pensions and the Ministry of Pensions. This has worked to the great advantage of all the ex-Service patients who have been to Queen Mary's.
The governors believe that, as a result of this co-operation and this harmonious working together, an organisation has been set up at Roehampton which is second to none in the world. I believe


that it is our duty to maintain that and that it would be a great tragedy if as a result of this change or any contemplated change in future there should be a worsening in the present position and, as a result, an inferior service for the pensioner.
Paragraph 12 of the White Paper which deals with the future of hospital services recognises that any new arrangements must ensure that the war pensioners always receive the treatment they need and that they shall get it promptly from the hospital best able to give it. For a wide range of pensioners—the limbless and so on—Queen Mary's is the obvious hospital for this kind of treatment. In paragraph 14 the Government indicate that it is their intention to bring existing Ministry of Pensions hospitals fully within the National Health Service, but they recognise Roehampton Hospital as a special case. They state that special arrangements will be necessary for its administration if and when it is brought within the National Health Service. It is this that causes some difficulty.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Southwark said, we need clarification upon this issue. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us a little more detail about the future of Queen Mary's. As I see the position, it could mean that the Government do not intend that this hospital should pass to a regional hospital board and to a hospital management committee. I hope that that is so But the governors are convinced—and I am speaking for all my colleagues in this matter—that any special arrangements contemplated must ensure that the charitable purposes of the trust are carried out, that its real purpose in maintaining priority for ex-Service men should be safeguarded and that the hospital should be maintained more or less in its present position.
On the demise of the Ministry of Pensions the governors would be prepared to take full responsibility for the administration of the hospital either on a capitation basis, as they did up to 1924, or on a repayment of actual costs involved, as obtained between 1935 and 1939. But if the Government feel at some stage that there are overwhelming reasons why the hospital should come within the National Health Service, I am sure that the governors would be prepared to co-operate

provided that the status of the hospital as a teaching hospital could be recognised and its administration entrusted to a board of governors in such a way that the essential character of Roehampton as an ex-Service men's hospital would be maintained.
We see many disadvantages in a period of uncertainty with regard to the future of the hospital. I hope, therefore, that a decision will be reached speedily upon this problem and that an announcement will be made as to its future at an early date. I ask for the assurance from the Minister—I am sure that it is one that he can give—that when he is working out the future of the hospital he will enter into consultation with the governors before any specific decision is reached. I say that because when the announcement of the merger was first made in February we had a case of an officer patient who went on a hunger strike for, I think, three days until we could convince him that he would not suffer under any-proposed change. I should not like to think that we were faced with a revival of that incident.
The governors will always do their utmost to further the excellent work of the Ministry of Pensions at Roehampton. and, whatever the organisation in future, they will strive to maintain the good name of the hospital, not only in its treatment of war service pensioners and National Health Service patients at home but also in extending its work in research and development and in the manufacture of artificial limbs, which has brought about the great renown of Roehampton throughout the world. I hope that the Minister will be able to give the reassurances for which I have asked.

9.36 p.m.

Mr. Eric Johnson: I, too, am well aware of the very great reputation of the Roehampton Hospital, and I share with the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) his very natural anxiety that nothing shall be done to impair its usefulness. I look forward to a reassurance from my hon. Friend that its high reputation will be maintained in every way possible.
For very many years I have been a member of the British Legion. I am also


the vice-president of one of the branches of the British Limbless Ex-Service Men's Association. I have recently had the opportunity of discussing the Order amalgamating the two Ministries with some of the officers of the Manchester branch of the Association. I had a very frank and friendly discussion with them and came away convinced that, whereas they are perfectly satisfied about the good intentions of the Government, they are still afraid of some of the results which may arise from what they call the "lumping together" of them with all other classes of insured persons.
They have the fear—I do not share it; I merely state what they told me—that the special position of the disabled—we must all agree that those who have been disabled in the service of our country have a special position—may be prejudiced if the Ministry of Pensions disappears as a separate entity. They would like some special assurances which are already given in the White Paper proposals written into the Order itself so that, as they put it to me, they will bind future Governments. They say—I think it is reasonable—that the fact that the Ministry of Pensions will no longer exist as a separate entity necessitates certain safeguards which are not necessary now because, by its very existence, the Ministry of Pensions provides them.
I want to draw the attention of my hon. Friend to some of the points which they would like written into the Order itself. I had to go out during the course of the debate and I hope I shall not be repeating what has already been said by other hon. Members. Paragraph 8 of the White Paper says that an additional Parliamentary Secretary will be appointed to the Ministry of Pensions, but paragraph 3 (2) of the Order states that the Ministry of Pensions and National Service may appoint an additional Parliamentary Secretary. I have already mentioned this to the Minister and I am given to understand that, in legal language, "may" and "shall" mean the same thing. [HON. MEMBERS:"No."] I am not a lawyer, and I should like the Minister's assurance that that is so. Even better, I and the members of the Limbless Ex-Service Men's Association would like "shall" used in the Order, because it is a word that we can understand although we have

not had the advantage of legal training. I agree with what was said by the right hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Isaacs), that it would be most desirable if the Parliamentary Secretary had a very special responsibility in regard to the pensioners, even extending to answering Questions in this House about them.
I turn now to paragraphs 15 and 17 of the proposals, which deal with limb fitting and appliances. Here, it seems to me, there is possibly a need for some definite safeguard, and for priority for the disabled to be made perhaps more clear than it is at the present time. Paragraphs 23 and 24 deal with the Ministry of Pensions Central Advisory Committee and the War Pensions Committees. It has been suggested to me that it would be a good thing if the terms of reference of those committees could be written into the Order itself, as I understand was done in the original Royal Warrant in 1919.
In paragraph 24 we see the words, "The Government is confident" that various things will be done. Perhaps the words "The Government is confident" are not very much of a guarantee, although I believe there is every reason for believing that this splendid work will go on. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite may laugh, but I can assure them that the point was made to me very strongly by the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association that it is not the intentions of this Government of which they are afraid. They want to safeguard themselves against the actions of any future Government. But be that as it may, they feel that whatever the complexion of the future Government, they would be happier if some of these safeguards were definitely written into the Order.

Mr. Shurmer: The hon. Gentleman says that the ex-Service men's organisations are concerned about the actions of future Governments. Is he aware that when the Labour Government were in power they did more to increase the benefits for ex-Service men than any Government had ever done before?

Mr. Johnson: They were expressing their fears about the future, and not about the past, which is not so much in favour of the hon. Gentleman's party as he may suppose.
Another small point which concerns the Order itself is that, according to paragraph 4 (1), it is apparently optional whether there shall be two reports or one. If I did not misunderstand the right hon. Member for Southwark, he seemed to think that what was required was one comprehensive report. It has, on the other hand, been represented to me that it is most desirable to make two reports not only optional, but compulsory. They would like to see a separate report from both sides of the Ministry.
I recognise, as we all do, that there is a natural anxiety on the part of the members of B.L.E.S.M.A. and of the British Legion as to their future under the new scheme, but I am bound to say that I do not share that anxiety. On the contrary, they will derive many advantages from the new scheme. [HON. MEMBERS:" No. "] No fewer than 900 additional offices will be made available to them, and I am equally convinced—perhaps I have a better opinion of my fellow men than have some hon. Members opposite who do not seem to be convinced—that they will get the same sympathetic consideration in the future as they have always had in the past.

As to the question of medical treatment and hospitals, the White Paper makes it clear that ex-Service men will continue to enjoy the facilities to which they have been accustomed, and that they will get the additional advantage of being brought under the auspices of the Ministry of Health and of making fuller use than they have already done of the National Health Service.

Finally, I would say once again that, although the disabled ex-Service men are anxious about their future position, their attitude is not one of hostility. As my hon. Friend the Minister is no doubt aware, they have made it clear that if the Government put this Measure through they will do all they possibly can to make it work. I hope my hon. Friend will find it possible to make some of the small amendments to the Order that I have attempted to suggest. Many hon. Gentleman on both sides of the House have served in the Armed Forces, and none of us would agree to a course of action if we felt that it would be detrimental to the ex-Service and the disabled

men. I am certain that the Government would not have contemplated bringing such a proposal forward unless they were convinced that it would be in the best interests of the pensioners.

My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser), in a most courageous and moving speech, explained why he believed that the Government were wrong. I attach a great deal of weight, naturally, to what he said, but none the less I shall vote for the Bill because I am convinced, and I go only on my own conviction—[Laughter.]—the hon. Member opposite may laugh if he likes—that the Government are right. I hope that when the Minister replies he will be able to give us further assurances.

9.48 p.m.

Mr. George Wigg: We have not to rely exclusively on what we believe or on our hopes of the future. We have the evidence of what happened between the two wars. In 1917 the Ministry of Pensions was set up, with about 250,000 pensioners. When the war was over, at the peak point there were some 1,600,000 pensioners, and the 100 per cent. disabled pension was fixed at £2 5s. per week. At the same time, there were disability pensioners in the Service Departments. Therefore, on the one hand there was the 100 per cent. disability pension for the pensioners of the First World War, and on the other hand the 100 per cent. disability Service pensioners.
What happened? The Ministry of Pensions, backed by the British Legion, who were the watchdog of the voluntary organisations, kept the disability pension at £2 5s. for the 100 per cent. disability right up to the outbreak of the Second World War, but for the Army, Navy and Air Force, as a result of the economy campaign carried out by a Conservative Government, the pension was reduced in 1920 to 37s. 6d. After the Second World War broke out, the then Conservative Administration came to the House of Commons in October, 1939, with the proposal that the 100 per cent. disability pension in the Second World War should be cut to the same rate as the pension of the Service Departments.
We see very clearly what happened in the past when we divorced the Ministry of Pensions from the natural watchdogs,


the voluntary organisations. It is extraordinary that in the period of the Labour Government that Labour Service Ministers recommended that all post-war disability pensions subsequent to 3rd September, 1939, should be transferred for payment from the Service Departments to the Ministry of Pensions. I should like to ask the Minister whether that arrangement is to continue and, if so, if he will tell the House why, in logic, the other disability pensioners who still remain in the payment of the Service Department are not transferred likewise.
This is a fundamental issue, because it is the fact, and perhaps the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) with his so-called concern for Regular soldiers will remember it, that Service pensioners, that is, Regular pensioners, of whom I am one, draw their pensions not in virtue of legal right but as a grace and favour and technically as out-patients of Chelsea Hospital. That element of charity in what we have earned has persisted from the 17th Century down to this day.
There is a world of difference between the way in which the Ministry of Pensions and the way in which the Army, Navy and Air Force treat their pensioners, though quite frankly I think the Army is the worst of the three Services. I had hoped very much that, with the help of the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely—and he has been a help in Service matters when he has not been playing the party game—and that of other hon. and gallant Members who understand the Service point of view, over the years we should have encouraged the Service Departments to let go of the payments of all their pensions, irrespective of whether they were disability or Service pensions, so that after a period of time we would have transferred to the Minister of Pensions all the pensions payable by the Service Departments.
The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely, like myself, is concerned about recruitment and also about economy. This is a proposal to save perhaps in three years' time £500,000. At the same time the Service Departments spend sums far in excess of that in order to obtain Regular recruits, and they cannot get them. The present Government cannot get men to join the Regular

Forces because the link has been broken between the ex-Regular soldier and his sons. He says to his sons the same thing as the miner said to his sons—" I have had my little lot. You keep away from them."
This is another example of a breach of faith between the Government and the ex-Service men. The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) is absolutely right. He has put his finger right on the spot. What we demanded in this House from 1945 right up to the present day was not equality of treatment for ex-Service men. We demanded priority for ex-Service men. I stand by that pledge, and if the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely stands behind this he will accompany me in the Lobby tonight, not to bring the Government down, but to force them to fulfil their pledge to ex-Service men.

9.54 p.m.

Captain Robert Ryder: I want to support what was said by the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) concerning Queen Mary's Hospital, at Roehampton. My interest is that I have the honour of serving on the board of governors. The hon. Member was speaking as chairman of the board of governors and he put forward the considered view of the board. I ask the Minister to give very careful consideration indeed to the speech which the hon. Member made.
As the hon. Gentleman explained, the White Paper uses these words:
… if and when it is brought within the National Health Service.
Those words suggest that it is in the mind of the Government that this may not come about. Over the years this hospital has earned for itself a unique reputation in the world and it would be hard if it were allowed to be swallowed up in the larger organisation of the Ministry of Health. I would, therefore, put a plea to the Minister to consider very carefully what is the best way in which the good work which this hospital has carried out can prosper in the future.

9.55 p.m.

Mr. Edward Shackleton: I am sorry that the Leader of the House, who opened this debate, has been absent for so much of the time and, in particular, that he did not hear the


speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). The real trouble about this White Paper is that the matter has not been gone into as fully as it might have been. The basic proposals of the White Paper have very much to commend them. The two arguments are, very simply, the question of economy—though I think that is rather a doubtful argument and that the case has not been substantiated—and the inevitable rundown of the Ministry of Pensions and the consequent disappearance of satisfactory career prospects for the civil servants concerned.
I would remind the Minister of the basic arguments against the disappearance of the Ministry of Pensions. They are the views not only of bodies like the British Legion, but also the S.S.A.F.A. and others who are not extremist bodies in the matter of propaganda. Their argument is based on the theory that it is inevitable that the Ministry of National Insurance, the Ministry of Health, or whatever Ministry is concerned will seek to assimilate these new functions into their general pattern of organisation.
I should like to give an example in the matter of the Ministry of Health and hospitals. It is quite inevitable that the regional hospital boards, charged with the responsibility of building up a regional service, will attempt to fit these new hospitals into that service, on the basis of providing equality throughout their areas. We object to that principle. We know that the regional hospital board have to do it sometimes with unfortunate results, but the effect will be disastrous if the Government are hoping to maintain the pledge they have given in this White Paper, that there will still be priority for the pensioner.
The other example is when the Minister of Health or the Minister of National Insurance seeks to stick his claim at the highest possible ceiling of expenditure with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There again, the pensioner will be at a disadvantage, because he will be considered not separately, as we have asked—and as I believe the Government still think he should be considered—but merely as part of the general organisation.
It is of the utmost importance that, if the pensioner is to be rehabilitated—if he is a disabled man—and is to play his part in the life of the community, he

should feel that he is getting a fair deal. The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) made the very substantial point that the psychology of this White Paper is unsound. That is a good reason for withdrawing it. On the question of the rundown of the Ministry, it is surely not beyond the capacity of the Government to find ways of maintaining career prospects, over the next few years, for the officials in the Ministry of Pensions.
I therefore ask the Government most seriously to consider withdrawing this White Paper. Surely this is one occasion on which hon. Members opposite can safely vote against the Government without fear of the Government resigning. We all appreciate their difficulties in this matter, but I hope that some hon. Members opposite will take this opportunity to make the Government withdraw a Measure which, on examination, is shown to be unsound and unfair to the disabled ex-Service man.

9.59 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Gower: I have listened to most of the debate, and one fact which has emerged is that several opponents of this proposal have expressed the view that there is a possibility of a future need for this merger. The great difference of opinion is on the question of timing. On the other hand, we have heard somewhat exaggerated expressions of fear from hon. Members opposite. I do not think there are any grounds for believing that the present officials in the Ministry of Pensions will be succeeded by an inhuman and heartless body of officials in the new combined Ministry. Indeed, the appointment of a separate Parliamentary Secretary to give special attention to the needs of pensioners is a sign that it is desired that these needs should have some special consideration. I only ask the Ministers concerned to ensure that that special emphasis is not only at the top but is at every level in the new combined Ministry.
I have been told by officials of both Ministries that in their view this step is not only a good one but one which many of them regard as overdue. I should not have regarded that information as surprising had it come only from the officials of the Ministry of National Insurance, but I have had a similar opinion, which is much more impressive—from the Ministry of Pensions.
Hon. Members opposite have not disproved the assertion of my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton), who pointed out that the fact that there will now be the possibility of immediate attention to the needs of pensioners in about 900 local offices, instead of the 80 existing offices of the Ministry of Pensions, will in a great many cases and some areas of the country mean a positive gain. It will mean that in some localities pensioners will have an easier and more prompt treatment of their grievances.
Many of us know how often these Departments overlap in cases which we have to take up. How often do hon. Members on both sides of the House find that, when they write to one Ministry, not only do they receive a reply from that Ministry but they also receive a letter saying, "As this case also affects the other Ministry, a copy of the letter has been forwarded to them"? That, too, is an indication that there is a possible need for this merger. We appreciate the fears of many people in all parts of the country. We appreciate the more moderate fears of hon. Members opposite. Hon. Members on both sides of the House would like the Minister, in his closing speech, to deal with those reasonable fears and not with the exaggerated fears which have been expressed from some less responsible Members.

10.3 p.m.

Mr. James Simmons: I feel that I have been completely justified in my original demand to the Leader of the House for a full day for the discussion of this Motion. The last two speakers have had to cram their remarks into five minutes, and there are a great number of hon. Members on both sides of the House who have ex-Service affiliations and a very keen interest in this matter who have not had the opportunity of expressing their opinion at all.
I very much regret that the Leader of the House is not here to face the music. In my opinion, it is discourteous to the House that, having opened the debate, he has run away. We know that he has a good war service record and that he was one of the first hundred thousand in the 1914–18 war, and we appreciate his gallantry and his service, but I am afraid

he fails to appreciate the real work of the Ministry of Pensions when he says that the payment of pensions is their main job. He cannot understand the spirit of the Ministry of Pensions if that is what he believes.
The right hon. Gentleman said that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) had expressed the view a short time ago that certain Ministries, including the Ministry of Pensions, might be amalgamated. Surely the Leader of the House knows that we on this side of the House plan a long time ahead, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale was no doubt thinking of some period in five or 10 years' time when this might be a possibility.
I welcome the Leader of the House back again. He used a clever debating device when he quoted the number of disabled persons, not all those persons in receipt of pensions. It may add to his comfort if I assure him I attach no evil motive to him in doing that. He also said that the Prime Minister had told us that it was a matter of honour to safeguard the position of the ex-Service men. Hon. Members who have expressed their opinions from either side of the House have done so with sincerity, and those on the other side of the House believe that the intentions of the Prime Minister and of the Government are good, but I would remind them of what place it is the way to which is paved with good intentions.
That economy and efficiency in administration may be achieved by the merging of Ministries is not denied. Some have unproductively employed civil servants and functions atrophied by lack of use. That is not the case with the Ministry of Pensions. It appears that the Government are anxious to implement one of their election pledges, and so they have made this hurried gesture. They got this idea but have allowed insufficient time for its gestation and have produced the abortion which is before us tonight. The decision was made without any consultation with the ex-Service men's organisations or the voluntary workers who have special knowledge of ex-Service men's problems and of the psychology of the war disabled. It was bad tactics, to say the least of it. The Government would not have dared to have treated the trade unions with the contempt with which they have treated the ex-Service men's organisations on this matter.
These organisations have expressed unanimous opposition to the merger. The pensions expert of a daily paper told me only a few days ago that he had received, since the merger was announced, over 1,000 letters from ex-Service men, not one in favour of the merger. So we have the ex-Service men unanimously, through organisations, against this proposal.
Here are a few facts taken from the 23rd and 27th Reports of the Minister of Pensions to this House. I take these two Reports because neither covers a period for which only one party was responsible. I think that will be the fairest way of dealing with the problem. The first of them, the 23rd, covers the period from April, 1939, to March, 1948. It was published by a Labour Minister of Pensions to cover the work of the Ministers of both sides of the House. The second one is published by the present Minister of Pensions, and covers a period during part of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Isaacs) was responsible for the Ministry.
From these two Reports we gather that from 1920 to the outbreak of the last war the number of pensioners on the books declined by half, from 1,500,000 to 750,000. From 1947 to the present time the decline was from 1,136,000 to 981,000, nothing comparable to the decline over the other period. Between the wars the staff declined from 32,000 to 3,071. From 1947 to the present time the decline has been merely from 12,500 to 9,500. Expenditure was down to £38 million in 1939. It rose to £89 million in the peak year and is still £84 million. These figures do not present the picture of a dying or moribund Ministry. In fact, the 27th Report of the present Minister says, on page 1:
There is, however, no abatement of general interest in the welfare of war pensioners.
And on page 79—
Public interest in the well-being of the ex-Service community shows no sign of diminution …
I have a few more facts to give, if the House will bear with me for a moment, supporting the case for delay.
Last year, 12,700 new pensions were awarded and 20,000 pensions are in payment to ex-Service disabled and their dependants in respect of service commencing after 1946. If the sensible course were taken of bringing Chelsea under the

Ministry of Pensions, the figures would be substantially increased. Over 1,000 pensioners are in receipt of payment in respect of Korea and Malaya. In conjunction with these figures, I submit to the Government and to the House that we must take into consideration another fact, that in the latter period the Ministry of Pensions were doing much more for the war disabled and their dependants than was done in the years between the wars.
It is not merely the number of people who serve but the quality of the service given that is the real criterion on which to assess effectively the volume of the work accomplished. I wish to draw attention to the fact contained in these Reports, which are available to every Member of this House, that the Ministry is still catering for nearly 500,000 World War I pensioners—the Old Contemptibles and people like that with lively memories of the cold mechanical administration between the wars, who more than others have appreciated the new dispensation which has earned their gratitude and inspired hope in them.
These veterans, whose average age is 63, ask "Why pick on the war disabled when you make your experiment in simplifying the machinery of Government and reducing costs?' Why should we who were the guinea pigs for the experiments of generals in war now be the guinea pigs for the experiments of politicians in peace-time? "[HON. MEMBERS:"Shame."] What is the shame about that. Who were the victims and guinea pigs of Passchendaele? We speak from experience, we 1914 lads, and we do not want our lads to be the guinea pigs of Government experiments into simplifying the machinery of Government and reducing costs.
I have not been half so strong in my remarks as a man who wrote to "The Star":
From Normandy beaches I heard a shout:
'The Ministry Merger Order is out!
'A Libyan sirocco sifting the sands
Passed on that message to invisible bands.
Have we forgotten the price that was paid?
As time tramps on do memories fade?
Some thousands of pounds saved in a year
Is Parliament's answer to a pensioner's prayer,
Social Security embraces us all;
What of the warrior who answered the call? 
That is a bit stronger than what I say.
From the psychological and the emotional point of view this proposed merger is premature until there has been a much greater run-down in the numbers of the 1914–18 war disabled, needing the attention of the Ministry of Pensions, and this especially applies to welfare and to hospitals.

On the question of hospitals, I would ask for this consideration. In the 27th Report of the Ministry of Pensions, the Minister says:
In general the Ministry's hospitals specialise in the treatment of characteristic war disabilities such as wounds, amputations paraplegia and tropical infections.
The war pensioner has confidence in his own hospital and its staff. Such names as Roehampton, Dunston Hill and Chapel Allerton have a special meaning to the war pensioner, and to undermine the confidence which is thus created would be criminal.

The Ministry of Pensions has been criticised on the other side of the House because they have fewer hospitals now than they had two or three years ago, but that is a very strong argument against this merger and against the necessity for it. As Ministry of Pensions hospitals have become redundant, the Ministry has not hesitated to hand them over to the National Health Service and to see that special provisions were made for the ex-Service men in those hopsitals. We have a list in the White Paper of those hospitals which still remain with the Minister, and, in addition, we find that the Ministry of Pensions last year treated over 3,000 Health Service patients in Ministry of Pensions hospitals. The acquisitive instincts of the Minister of Health must not be allowed to deprive the war disabled of those hospitals which primarily cater for their special needs.

The chairman of the board of governors of Roehampton Hospital this afternoon gave us his experience and the feelings of his fellow governors. Roehampton has an international experience extending through two world wars, and it has made it possible for the civilian amputee to get a better limb much more quickly than he would otherwise have Been able to do. The White Paper, however, sweeps aside without recognition the work of this pioneer organisation, and coldly says that it should be handed over to the Health

Department. Such cavalier treatment of this great institution and its work leaves such a smell that the word "sanitary" rather than "health" is the word that comes to mind.

Another sign of hasty improvisation is the failure to understand, on the issue of awarding and entitlement, that while the machine used by the Ministry of National Insurance deals with short-term cases, the Ministry of Pensions officials are highly qualified in dealing with cases calling for understanding of war service conditions and the effect of injuries over periods of many years. The same machine is not capable of performing both these functions, and the specialist staff which the Ministry of Pensions possesses ought not only to be retained, but recruits should be trained for future needs.

On the question of appeals, which has been mentioned this evening, the Ministry of National Insurance case law system is far too rigid for dealing with the war disabled, who prefer the elasticity of their existing machinery. The war pensions welfare service is another specialist service based on human personal contacts, and such a service is possible in a Ministry with specific and limited responsibilities, but not in one the responsibilities of which are diffused over a much wider area of between 30 and 40 million persons, as the Ministry of National Insurance is. It is the very fact that the Ministry of Pensions is a small Ministry which has enabled this personal service to be rendered to ex-Service men and war disabled.

The present Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary, with their experience, will admit that, under the new regime, a part-time Parliamentary Secretary could not possibly give as much personal attention and service as they and their predecessors have given to the ex-Service people whom they serve. It takes him and his Parliamentary Secretary the whole of their time to cover the whole of the war pension committees in the country in the course of 12 months. What will a part-time Parliamentary Secretary be able to do with the war pensions committee. What about the visits to hospital? I am now referring to our own Minister of Pensions who is the servant of ex-Service men, and I am saying that opportunities for service will


be much less and the service rendered will be much smaller.

No figure is given for the immediate saving, which we are told will not be large. On the eventual saving we are told that after two or three years it should be of the order of £500,000, and for this niggardly result the Government are prepared to upset and make apprehensive the war disabled. The very fact that the anticipated savings are so insignificant is an additional argument in favour of our contention that the proposed merger is premature. Even so, if, as the White Paper claims, we are to have 900 Ministry of National Insurance offices opened for the convenience of ex-Service men, we are going to need 900 additional Ministry of National Insurance officers acting as extra welfare officers to man them, and even on a part-time basis, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Collick) pointed out, that is going to cost about £400,000, which will nearly wipe out the £500,000 a year in savings.

The fact is that this White Paper and the accompanying Order have been so hurriedly drafted that vital considerations have been ignored, and we are bound to go into the Lobby against the Motion on the grounds of it being premature. I ask the Government if they cannot withdraw it. What is the hurry about this? We have had very little time for discussion and the whole of the ex-Service men's organisations have expressed their opposition to it. They have not been consulted. What is the strong objection to withdrawing the order and consulting the organisations most concerned?

If the Government will not withdraw the Order, what about a free vote? Many hon. Members on the Government benches and particularly those with ex-Service connections ought to be able to see the true position. We notice some of these hon. Members on the other side. It has been pitiable to watch them sitting on the fence and balancing very uneasily on this matter. If, however, they are precluded from voting as they desire because of the Whips, the Motion may be carried, but I still hope that many hon. Members on the other side will follow the example of the old Bible prophet Nehemiah, who is a particular favourite of mine. When Nehemiah was

building the walls they sought to dissuade him on the grounds that it was inexpedient that he should go on with the job because someone did not like them. Then Nehemiah asked why he should flee from his responsibilities. I ask hon. Members on the other side of the House to ask themselves the same kind of question.

If this Motion is carried, I ask the Government to meet the ex-Service men's organisations on the question of safeguards and to implement those which are reasonable, even if it requires another Order to do so. I am not convinced—and in this I am supported by B.L.E.S.M.A.—that priority of treatment, or of supply of limbs and appliances is adequately safeguarded in the proposed Order. The position of Roehampton and Stoke Mandeville is not too clear.

I have tried to put a factual and constructive case for the postponement of this merger. I have tried to show that this is not a moribund and decaying Ministry. As a 1914–18 war disabled man I feel deeply on the matter. I am sorry if I have roused the ire of hon. Gentlemen opposite. If my final appeal to the Government is one to the heart and the emotions, I hope the House will bear with me. I am not ashamed to make an emotional appeal because an emotional appeal to the finest instincts of the young men of my generation led them into the armies of World War One.

G.B.S. wrote about the "social Socialist." I am scared of the coldblooded Socialist, Tory or Liberal who only sees things where he ought to see human beings, who is prepared to subordinate good emotional instincts to the promptings of a tidy mind. I speak especially for my old comrades of World War One, who are apprehensive of the proposed change. They have come to regard the post-1945 Ministry of Pensions as a friendly institution. The welfare service of the Ministry has eased their burdens and brightened their declining years. They have come to regard the officers of the Ministry as guides, philosophers and friends. Is it worth undermining their confidence and disturbing their peace of mind for such a paltry sum?

I must keep on stressing the value of this personal service to men whose minds


and bodies have been racked by war. I know many will regard this as sentiment and emotion. I am a simple chap and, as such, I earnestly appeal to the wise and clever ones, at least on this issue, to let their mighty intellects give their hearts a chance to function.

For me attendance at an Armistice Day service is no formality. Even after all these years I am still deeply moved on these occasions. I feel when I go there and when I come away that the slain of our wars would appreciate that the best possible service to their comrades who served is the best kind of homage. And I feel in my bones that this is being jeopardised by this Order. It is because I believe that this will limit the opportunity of service that I earnestly and sincerely appeal to the Government to postpone it as long as we have with us those human problems created by war. Let a few more years roll by during which these war veterans may still receive the care and attention of their own Ministry.

They gave so much. It is so little to ask that the Ministry which they have learned to trust and almost to revere should not be taken away from them. If I have been too emotional in my final appeal for the traditions of this House, and if I have offended those traditions by so being, I am sorry but I cannot help it for "at the going down of the sun and in the morning" I still remember them.

10.29 p.m.

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Heath-coat Amory): I am perhaps in a rather unusual position this evening, and if the arguments I put forward in favour of my own liquidation seem a little reminiscent of a Communist trial, I should like to assure hon. Members that I have had no drugs administered to me by my colleagues.
This evening there has been emotion in the atmosphere of our debate. I do not quarrel with that because I think that on a matter like this we all feel emotional. Most hon. Gentlemen who have spoken from the opposite side of the House have spoken against the Motion. The hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) mentioned hon. Members on this side of the House who feel embarrassed. There may be hon. Members opposite who are

not entirely free from embarrassment, because I know that a number of them feel that the step we are proposing is, in the circumstances, sensible. There are differences between us as to how it will work out but on one consideration we are all at one. That is our resolve that nothing must be done to the detriment of the disabled ex-Service men.
That feeling, which I believe is unanimous in the House, is one which the Government welcome and applaud. We understand very well the feelings of anxiety expressed by ex-Service organisations and hon. Members as to whether a change of this kind could conceivably work to the detriment of the ex-Service men. Most of us in the Government are ex-Service men ourselves. We look at things in the same kind of way. I ask hon. Members to believe that if we had been in any doubt whatever after studying the matter that it would work to the detriment of the war-disabled, we would not for a moment have contemplated bringing the proposal forward.
I should like to say in that connection what a debt we owe to the ex-Service organisations for the help which they give me—I feel this particularly in my position—and which I hope that they will give to my colleagues in the future in our work. I have felt intensely proud of the Ministry of Pensions this evening. On all sides there have been tributes to the way in which it is carrying out its duty. There has been no criticism of any kind. I have been Minister for only a short time and I can take no credit for it, but the Ministry of Pensions is at present doing a good job and is at the top of its form.
Why do we propose a change? First and foremost—and I claim that this is implicit in the White Paper—because, looking to the future, we are satisfied that the arrangements we propose will give opportunities for a better service than would be the case if we allowed the present Ministry to run down over the years. I believe that some hon. Gentlemen have said that that was not in the White Paper. I ask them to read the document again. They will find that it is implicit throughout almost the whole of it. That is the first and the most important of our reasons—because looking to the future we are convinced that this proposal will work out in that way.
Secondly, there are other reasons which are also dealt with in the White Paper—the simplification of administration and economy without detriment to the service. I claim that this change is an administrative reorganisation and does not affect pensions policy in any way whatever. All rights, privileges and priorities will be preserved. All statutory responsibilities—and I underline this—and discretionary powers which are possessed by the Minister of Pensions today will be possessed equally by my right hon. Friends who will administer this service in future, and equally the responsibilities will lie on their shoulders.
Some people talk as though we intended to bring the whole staff of the Ministry of Pensions to an end. The work will go on and the present staff will continue to do it. I do not think that there is any dispute among us that eventually some merger or other of this kind would become necessary. The run-down of the Ministry of Pensions is steady; indeed, during the last six years to the extent of about one-sixth. My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal, who opened the debate, quoted some figures, and I am not going to weary the House with more than just these—and they, I think, support the timing of the proposal. So far as hospital treatment goes, in the last three years the needs have been reduced by a quarter; medical boarding in the last two years, by a half; appeals in the last six years, by two-thirds.
We suggest that this move now—and I agree that it could be postponed—means that we shall not risk losing something which we have at present and which we might lose by postponement. [AN HON. MEMBER:"What is it? "] Let me explain. If we did not make the change now—and I do not want to exaggerate—there would be certain difficulties, growing difficulties, arising from the running down of the Ministry. We believe in decentralisation, and I hope that this work will go on being dealt with in a decentralised way. But as the work runs down it becomes more difficult to justify the smaller local offices simply because the work grows less. We have been told that we have eight hospitals, whereas there were 67, and one hon. Member—I believe it was the hon. Member for Brierley Hill—asked, why not hand over more hospitals?

Mr. Simmons: I said we had handed over hospitals as we found them redundant.

Mr. Amory: I thought that the hon. Gentleman implied that we could go on doing that; but if we reduced below eight, while continuing the present system, there would be difficulties because of the geographical situation of our hospitals. As the hon. Member knows, even now we have to take people a very long way to get them in.
Next, I should like to turn to the staff issue. I appreciate the tribute to the staff, all of whom have done such an excellent job; but, as the Ministry runs down, the opportunities for promotion will become fewer. In the days between the wars, when the work ran down, that was the case, and I want to make sure that there will be arrangements for our staff to be as good as at present.

There is the question of simplification and economy, and on this I think all I need say is that the subject is dealt with very adequately in the White Paper. The Ministries concerned are doing a good deal of the same kind of work. Both the Ministry of Pensions and the Ministry of National Insurance—and the Ministry of Health to some extent—have got over their initial "peak troubles," but the Ministries of National Insurance and of Pensions have an overlapping clientele. I think that about half a million inquiries are made of my Department and the Ministry of National Insurance in a year, and the economies will be largely in manpower and in the more mechanical departments, if I may put it that way, of the Ministry of Pensions, such as the actual payment of pensions.

The economies in the other department, as I foresee them, such as the awards of pensions work and the welfare work, will be extremely small. Later there should be some saving in premises. Though one cannot say that it is a cash saving, there will be a clear saving in national resources by the fuller use of the present Ministry of Pensions hospitals.

So far as the effect on our staff goes, I want to emphasise what is clear in the White Paper—that savings in manpower will be brought about very gradually. We do not expect any sudden redundancies of staff. The Ministry of


National Insurance assure me that they will feel their way. Hon. Members would be surprised to find how great is the normal wastage in a staff like ours. Whilst we have run down quite a lot in the last three years the greater part of the reduction has been made by not replacing wastage. And we have the Whitley Council to deal with redundancies when they take place.

I do not want to make too much of the £500,000 to be saved by this proposal, but it is one-eighth of our total administrative costs. When one is seeking economies and finds an economy of £500,000 that one believes, can be made without detriment to the service, it would be quite wrong to overlook it, because half-millions add up. I want to give an absolute pledge on behalf of my colleagues that no single economy will be made unless the Ministries concerned are completely satisfied that that economy, big or small, can be made without detriment to the service given. We entirely agree that no economy of this kind would be worth considering if it would affect the quality or the effectiveness of the service.

I should like to give one or two reasons why we are convinced—and I hope we may convince some hon. Members who do not feel like that at present—that this change will give us opportunities for giving a better service. That will not be in the short term but in the long term. I do not think many pensioners will notice much difference in the short term. In the long term I think that it will work out all right.

Mr. Shurmer: They will notice the difference.

Mr. Amory: Well the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Dr. H. Morgan: It will be too late because of the poison in it.

Mr. Amory: We think it will be a better service, first because of the difficulties and even the dangers in the long term of allowing the present Ministry of Pensions to go on running down for a very long time.
The second reason, which has been mentioned several times already, is a

really important one. It is that we shall have additional points of contact. My Department has at present about 80 local offices. We only wish we had more, because we believe in the principle of decentralisation and in carrying our service as near to the pensioner as we possibly can. The 900 offices, the use of which we shall share, will give us something additional to what we have at present, something supplementary. They are, as it were, antennae that are put out from the regional offices much nearer to where the pensioners live.
Wales is an example of where this proposal will bring an immense amount of benefit. I hardly ever have the courage to talk about Wales, and hon. Members can correct me if I am wrong, but it is a very large place with scattered rural areas where, I am told, people live quite a distance from one another. We have five offices there at the moment. The Ministry of National Insurance have 98. If we play our part aright those will be invaluable when it comes to putting over the service and establishing contact. They will not replace what we have at the moment; they will be supplementary. Some of these offices are very small.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of National Insurance has already made arrangements whereby there should be at least one person in each of these offices, however small, who has been trained in war pensions work. Somebody in the course of this debate talked about enormous expense. This does not mean an additional person but one member of the staff, however small the number, who "knows his stuff" about war pensions. Already the Minister has got out quite a comprehensive instructional handbook on war pensions work.
The hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Shurmer) said something about a queue of unemployed. I am sure he will agree that there is no queue of unemployed at National Insurance offices.

Mr. Mellish: In the five offices that the hon. Gentleman's Department has in Wales, he will find there qualified welfare officers, who are themselves ex-pensioners and who do a first-class job of work. In these 98 offices are we going to have the same welfare facilities as we had in the past?

Mr. Amory: I was going to say a word about the welfare service. We have about 90 welfare offices. The existence of these local offices will not interfere adversely with the work of the pensions officers. On the contrary, we believe it will give them opportunities for doing it more effectively. The hon. Gentleman knows how difficult it must be for our limited number of welfare officers to establish contact with pensioners who may be living 20 or 30 miles away. They will use the local offices as far as it is sensible to use them, but our welfare staff will still be there. They will be working partly through the local offices and they will be doing exactly the work that they are doing at present, which is contacting individual pensioners direct.
The whole idea is that we are going to give our welfare service a better chance to operate. In no circumstances whatever will we do anything to damage that service. I am not responsible for this service. I believe that its inception was one of the very best things that the last Government did. Let me pay a tribute here. I would say to the right hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Isaacs) that everything I have seen of our welfare service makes me proud of it and determined to see that nothing happens which will make that work less effective than it is.
Then I want to come to this question of medical treatment. I want to say how grateful I am for the way in which my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Health have buckled to and shown that they have got their hearts in this job, that they are going to look after the war disabled thoroughly and take advantage of all these additional opportunities that exist.

Mr. Renton: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentlemen to whom the Minister has just referred are already looking after more war disabled than his own Department are doing?

Mr. Amory: I will come to that point. In a sense, that is true. The same thing applies to their senior officials, who are already making valuable suggestions and are grappling with this proposal with enthusiasm.
My right hon. Friends have made a suggestion which, I believe, is of the

utmost importance in enabling this project to lead to a better service. They have said that the war disabled who need treatment for their war disabilities shall receive priority not only in our existing war pensions hospitals but in all National Health Service hospitals. That priority is something that I have longed to have. It will be of the utmost value to the disabled ex-Service men, and I want to tell my right hon. Friends how grateful I am to them for having offered that suggestion without any request from myself.
Now what does it mean? It means this: that apart from the emergency cases the war-disabled person who needs medical treatment in hospital for his war disability will be able to go into his local hospital, or into one of our existing war pensions hospitals, whichever is thought best. I have mentioned this question of distance. There are many who would prefer to get into their local hospitals if they could, and, short of emergency cases, they are going to get priority to enable them to do this. But if there are no beds available, then there will still be these eight war pensions hospitals. Again, my right hon. Friends have made it clear that every bed in these hospitals will be available for a war pensioner as long as it is wanted, and the beds will then be used for National Health Service patients if they are not wanted for war pensioners.

Mr. Shackleton: Will the disabled pensioner have the choice as to which hospital he will go to?

Mr. Amory: Clearly weight will be attached to his wishes. But I do not know, I am not an expert in these matters. Even under our present system, the doctor's advice as to where he can get the best treatment is a pretty important factor. I would say that much weight will be attached to the wishes of the pensioner concerned. Even in the last few years the majority of cases of treatment for war disabilities have been carried out in hospitals other than those owned by the Ministry of Pensions. That will be seen from the figures. The majority of our patients have been treated in National Health Service hospitals.
My right hon. Friend tells me this is not going to be a very formidable


problem today. Whereas in all our Ministry of Pensions hospitals last year 14,000 pensioners were treated, in the Ministry of Health hospitals 9,000 patients a day were taken in. That shows that this additional problem in regard to the Ministry of Health hospitals is not going to be an unmanageable one.

Dr. Morgan: It is not a question so much of hospital accommodation but of the difficulty of getting patients from institution to institution, and from hospital to hospital. There has to be the necessary transport and ambulance services to deal with the problem.

Mr. Amory: Yes, I know that is a problem, but it is one we are faced with already under the present arrangements.
I want to make it absolutely clear that we believe that this priority which is to be given to the war disabled in National Health Service hospitals is something that will be of the utmost value in the future.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Only in respect of their war disability.

Mr. Amory: Yes, only in respect of treatment for war disability. I am afraid I am having to deal with this terribly quickly, because I have a lot of points which hon. Members have raised and I want to give an answer to them.
There is another reason we think it will work out better in the future, and that is the quicker liaison we shall get with the Ministry of National Insurance in the numberless questions and queries which arise as to the social service benefits to which war pensioners may be eligible. As far as the fears and anxieties which have been expressed go, first of all there is this one of downgrading, submerging, and loss of identity. We are satisfied that that is not going to happen. The new Minister is going to be a Minister of Pensions and National Insurance.
I was asked the meaning of "May have a second Parliamentary Secretary." I am told that when lawyers say" may "they mean" shall." I do not know about that; I am going to shy off that one. But the Government intend to appoint a second Parliamentary Secretary to the new Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. I want to make it clear that

the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance will have the same responsibilities not only for paying pensions and allowances but also for making any other arrangements which are necessary for the war disabled. In collaboration with his right hon. Friend, he will be responsible for ensuring that the war disabled get the right hospital treatment. Further, I would emphasise that the new Minister will have a higher status than the present Minister of Pensions.
As for the personal and individual nature of the service which the Ministry of Pensions tries to give, I hope I have said enough to lead hon. Members to believe that we have no intention whatever of cutting the welfare services in any way. The same comment applies to the work among children—the work with orphans; that work will continue in exactly the same way as at present.
Both the right hon. Member for Southwark and the hon. Member for Stockton-in-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) asked about Roehampton, as did my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Merton and Morden (Captain Ryder). We recognise the national status—indeed, the international status—of Roehampton, and arrangements for the future will safeguard that status in every way. As the White Paper states, at present the Government have no plans for altering the position of Roehampton in the sense of putting it more directly under the National Health Service, but we do not know what will be the most sensible thing to do in the more distant future. No change will be made without the fullest consultation with the governing body, of which the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees is the valued Chairman. Great weight will be attached to the views of that governing body, and Roehampton will go on fulfilling exactly the same functions as it fulfils now.
I was asked whether we could put some of these safeguards which I have mentioned into the Order in statutory form. I am advised that that is not possible. This is a Transfer of Functions Order and can deal only with existing statutory powers. We cannot put new powers into the Order; that would require entirely fresh legislation. The kind of safeguards we have been discussing do not lend themselves very easily to statutory form.
The right hon. Member for South-wark asked me whether peace-time injuries in the Services would be administered by the new Ministry. The answer is, "Yes, they will." The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) also raised that point, and he asked whether the situation concerning injuries in the Services between the wars would be changed. The answer is that there will be no change at all.
I was asked whether there would be a joint report or separate reports under the new arrangement. We thought that ought to be left for consideration by the Ministers concerned so that they could see whether there should be a joint report or separate reports. I am sure they will pay attention to the views of the right hon. Member for Southwark on this point.
The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) asked about welfare and children's officers. I cannot forecast the number which will be required because, as he knows, our children are growing up; thus the numbers will go down and we cannot tell how many welfare officers we shall want. However, no change in the number is being made as a result of this amalgamation. Our staff of children's officers will be sufficient to deal with the number of orphans and none of our existing children's officers is under notice at present. I was pressed strongly to say whether there would be two classes of treatment in Ministry of Health hospitals. The answer, as I was sure it would be, after discussion with my right hon. Friend, is this. We have talked about priorities for admission to the National Health Service hospitals, and I can say that once somebody is in, all patients are treated the same.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) asked about training of officers. I have answered that already. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Basset-law (Mr. Bellenger) asked about the King's Roll and the Disabled Register. Both these come under the Ministry of Labour and will not be affected by this change. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Collick) asked about Roehamp-ton limbs and said that they were much better than private enterprise limbs. But all limbs made at Roehampton are made by private enterprise.
Regarding the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir Ian Fraser), I understand so well his deep feelings on this matter. No one has a better right to express them in this House than he has, and I thank him for the restraint with which he put his views. I think I have answered the points made by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), and I hope I have not overlooked anything else.

Mr. Isaacs: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's courtesy in so fully answering most of the points I have put. There are, however, two points outstanding. Can he say anything about the future control of Stoke Mandeville, and something about what is happening at the Duchess of Gloucester House? The second point is not so important, as it is merely an administrative matter.

Mr. Amory: I am sorry. They are very important points. I think this happened since the days of the right hon. Gentleman, but Stoke Mandeville is at present administered by the Ministry of Health. We still have our connections there, and the work is being carried on in exactly the same way. Stoke Mandeville is recognised as a national centre, and almost an international centre, for the type of work it does. The work Dr. Guttman has done through his supervision, as the right hon. Gentleman said, is almost magic. I hope there will be no change there of policy or anything else. Regarding the Duchess of Gloucester House, that will be run by the Ministry of Labour, but very close contacts are maintained with Stoke Mandeville. Dr. Guttman goes there and, as far as the medical aspect is concerned, that connection will remain.
I am afraid I have spoken longer than I meant to do. The Ministry of Pensions will cease its separate existence this evening, if this Order is approved, in excellent shape and really on top of its job. I am sure our loyal and experienced staff there will continue to work wholeheartedly in association with their new colleagues in the interests of the war disabled. I am satisfied that the partnership will prove to be effective and fruitful. I know my right hon. Friends and their staffs are resolved it shall be. I believe each Department has something of value to contribute to the other.
I gather some hon. Gentlemen feel they must vote against this Order. I am sorry for that, but hon. Gentlemen must take whatever course they think right. I do not dispute that, but I am sure that if they had had the opportunity of making the appreciation that we have with the facts at our disposal they would, most of them, have reached the same conclusions we have. We are satisfied we can convince them that their fears are in this case unfounded, and that this is just a sensible step in the direction of more effective service in the long term.
Whatever the result of the Division, I hope that every hon. Member will con

-tinue to give the same help and encouragement to the Ministers who will be responsible, as they have given to me, and for which I should like to thank them, and that we shall manage to keep war pensions questions as much out of party politics in the future as we have in recent years, and that we shall work together to make the most of the opportunities that I believe this project affords us to provide a still better service for the war disabled and their dependants. None of us will be satisfied with less than that.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 226; Noes, 212.

Division No. 208.]
AYES
[1.7 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Ford, Mrs. Patricia
Linstead, Sir H. N


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Fort, R.
Llewellyn, D. T.


Alport, C. J. M.
Foster, John
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.


Arbuthnot, John
Gammans, L. D.
Longden, Gilbert


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Garner-Evans, E. H
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Godber, J. B.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Banks, Col. C.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
MoCallum, Major D.


Barlow, Sir John
Gough, C. F. H.
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Gower, H. R.
McKibbin, A. J.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Graham, Sir Fergus
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Maclean, Fitzroy


Birch, Nigel
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield, W.)


Bishop, F. P.
Harden, J. R. E.
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)


Black, C. W.
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Marples, A. E.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N. W.)
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Maude, Angus


Brooman-White, R. C.
Heald, Sir Lionel
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Heath, Edward
Medlicott, Brig. F.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T
Higgs, J. M. C.
Mellor, Sir John


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas


Burden, F. F. A.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythonshawe)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Carr, Robert
Hirst, Geoffrey
Nicholls, Harmar


Cary, Sir Robert
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Channon, H.
Hollis, M. C.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Hope, Lord John
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P


Cole, Norman
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Colegate, W. A.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Nutting, Anthony


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Oakshott, H. D.


Craddook, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hurd, A. R.
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (llford, N.)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D


Crouch, R. F.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh, W)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon. M)


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Jennings, R.
Osborne, C.


Davidson, Viscountess
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Partridge, E.


Deedes, W. F.
Jones, A. (Haft Green)
Peake, Rt. Hon. D.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W
Perkins, W. R. D.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Kaberry, D.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Keeling, Sir Edward
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Donner, Sir P. W.
Kerr, H. W.
Powell, J. Enoch


Doughty, C. J. A.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Lancaster, Col, C. G.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. D. L


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Law, Rt. Hen. R. K.
Profumo, J. D.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Leather, E. H. C.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Fell, A.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Redmayns, M.


Finlay, Graeme
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Rees-Davies, W. L.


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F
Lindsay, Martin
Remnant, Hon. P.


Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Renton, D. L. M.



Robertson, Sir David
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Robson-Brown, W.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Roper, Sir Harold
Storey, S.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Webbe, Sir H. (London&Westminster)


Russell, R. S.
Summers, G. S.
Wellwood, W.


Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Scott, R. Donald
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Shepherd, William
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W)
Wills, G.


Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C N
Wood, Hon. R


Snadden, W. McN.
Tilney, John
York, C.


Spearman, A. C. M.
Turner, H. F. L



Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Turton, R. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Vane, W. M. F.
Sir Cedric Drewe and Mr. Studholme.


Stevens, G. P.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.





NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Adams, Richard
Grey, C. F.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mort, D. L.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Grimond, J.
Moyle, A


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Hale, Leslie
Mulley, F. W.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Murray, J. D.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Nally, W.


Awbery, S. S.
Hamilton, W. W.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Balfour, A.
Hannan, W.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.


Bartley, P.
Hargreaves, A.
Oliver, G. H.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Orbach, M.


Bence, C. R.
Hastings, S.
Oswald, T.


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Hayman, F. H.
Padley, W. E.


Beswick, F.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)
Paget, R. T.


Bing, G. H. C
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Paling, Rt. Hon W. (Dearne Valley)


Blackburn, F
Herbison, Miss M
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Blyton, W. R.
Hobson, C. R.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Boardman, H.
Holman, P.
Pannell, Charles


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Pargiter, G. A.


Bowden, H. W.
Houghton, Douglas
Parker, J.


Bowen, E. R.
Hoy, J. H.
Pearson, A.


Bowles F. G.
Hubbard, T. F.
Peart, T. F.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Brockway, A. F.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Proctor, W. T.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pryde, D. J


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Reid. William (Camlachie)


Burke, W. A.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Rhodes, H.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Richards, R.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Carmichael, J.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Champion, A. J.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Ross, William


Clunie, J.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Royle, C.


Coldrick, W.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Collick, P. H.
Keenan, W.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
King, Dr. H. M.
Short, E. W.


Cove, W. G.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lewis, Arthur
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Crosland, C. A. R.
Lindgren, G. S.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Skeffington. A. M.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Logan, D. G.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
MacColl, J. E.
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
McGhee, H. G.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
McGovern, J.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham. S.)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
McInnes, J.
Snow, J. W.


Deer, G.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Sorensen, R. W


Dodds, N. N.
McLeavy, F.
Sparks, J. A.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Steele, T.


Edelman, M.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Swingler, S. T.


Fernyhough, E.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Sylvester, G. O.


Finch, H. J.
Manuel, A. C.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Mason, Roy
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Foot, M. M.
Mellish, R. J.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Forman, J. C.
Mitchison, G. R.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)
Monslow, W
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda W)


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Moody, A. S.
Thornton, E.


Gibson, C. W.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Timmons, J.


Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Morley, R.
Turner-Samuels, M


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

Usborne, H. C.







Weitzman, D.
Wigg, George
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Wells, William (Walsall)
Wilkins, W. A.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


West, D. G.
Willey, F. T.
Yates, V. F.


Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John
Williams, David (Neath)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Wheeldon, W. E.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)



White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Kenneth Robinson.


Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Transfer of Functions (Ministry of Pensions) Order, 1953, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on 18th May.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

COASTAL FLOODING (ACREAGE PAYMENTS SCHEME)

11.18 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. G. R.H. Nugent): I beg to move,
That the Draft Coastal Flooding (Acreage Payments) Scheme, 1953, a copy of which was said before this House on 23rd June, be approved. '
The House will not wish me to give a lengthy and detailed description of the scheme, because I did so a fortnight ago when I originally introduced it. As will be remembered, on that occasion I withdrew it at the request of the Opposition because they felt some uncertainty about some aspects. I withdrew it in order to clarify those uncertainties.
There are two aspects on which there was uncertainty. The first was whether it was within the powers of the parent Act, the Coastal Flooding (Emergency Provisions) Act, and the other was whether the acreage payments proposed in the scheme were, in fact, related to the desired rehabilitation. The scheme which I am moving tonight is amended in order to clarify those two uncertainties. The first amendment is in paragraph 4, which is a new paragraph put in to make plain the link up between this scheme and Section 13 (2, a) of the Coastal Flooding (Emergency Provisions) Act. Paragraph 4 alludes to the schedule of crops which is mentioned in Section 13 (2, a), and I think it now removes any doubt arising from the original Scheme as to the schedule of crops.
The other amendment of substance is in paragraphs I and 2 of the Schedule

where we have introduced the words, in the second line of each paragraph:
… and is dealt with in an approved mode during the year 1953.
We put those words in to make it plain that these acreage payments, although related to the nature of the crop in the ground at the time of the flooding on 31st January, were made with respect to the operations which were to be done on the land at the behest of the county committees concerned after the flooding had taken place. In other words, the change is to make it plain that these payments are made for the purpose of rehabilitation. That was the other major doubt which arose.
In addition, there are two small consequential amendments. The first is in paragraphs 9 and 10 (2), where we have postponed the closing date for applications from 15th July to 15th August to give the necessary additional time because the scheme has been brought before the House a fortnight later than was originally intended. The other small amendment is in paragraph 8 (3), in the second line, where there was a misprint before which referred to "civil contract." That is now amended to "simple contract." The main changes remove any uncertainty which there might have been as to the Scheme being within the powers of the parent Act and as to the payments being for the purpose of rehabilitation. I hope that the House will be willing to approve it with these amendments.

11.23 p.m.

Mr. George Brown: One cannot help feeling that this Motion has been moved from the wrong side of the House. In its present form it becomes not the Scheme which the Government sought to introduce the other night but that which the Opposition submitted the Government ought to have introduced. However, we are all willing to do good by stealth and, as the Parliamentary Secretary has a position which entitles him to move the approval of the Scheme, we are prepared in this case to let him do so. But it


must be clearly understood that in its new form it is the Scheme we suggested.
The position is now that the scheme, by the insertion of paragraph 4 which did not appear in the previous draft, and by the insertion of the words to which the Parliamentary Secretary has referred in paragraphs I and 2 of the Schedule, now comes within the terms of the parent Act. It is not a question of removing uncertainty, because we have now discovered, as some of us thought previously, that that scheme was in fact outside the terms of the Act. I am sure that the Government are grateful to us for having saved them a considerable amount of difficulty and maybe having saved somebody from being surcharged.
It has always been the view of this side of the House, equally with that of the Government, that these farmers and these farms—and much as we feel for the hardship of the farmers who have suffered we all feel above all the importance of bringing the land into cultivation and full use again as quickly as possible—should be helped. It is our view that these acreage payments, as a means of enabling the tiller of the soil to get the land back into use as quickly as possible, were most useful and important.
What we sought to do the other night was to make sure that we did not pass through this House rather quickly very late at night a scheme which in the end would make payments which the Act did not authorise, and, much more important, which would mean that we were paying compensation for what had been lost, whereas the whole intention of the House was to make provision for what had to be done thereafter. This scheme, by paragraph 4 and the other words referred to, does that. It means that the county agricultural executive committees, which are charged with the not very easy job of adding the provision of all this service to their other duties, now have some clear guidance and instruction from this House instead of being left to imagine what it was we really meant.
I know these county committees, and I know many of the people on them; and I can say that, by and large, they would have made a good job of their duties under the old scheme. But, it would have put much more on them than Parliament should

have put. As to the change of date, we have not only postponed it to bring it in line with the other scheme, but we have also given six weeks instead of a bare month which, as I said the other evening, I thought insufficient.
It only remains for me to say quite sincerely that the Parliamentary Secretary was, we appreciate, in a difficult situation on that first occasion; and we on this side of the House appreciate the way in which he was susceptible to the arguments put forward and appreciate the friendly and courteous way in which he listened to us in the discussions which took place afterwards. For our part, we have promised that we will not hold up the debate unduly, nor delay the operation of the Scheme. But it is now better than it was; it is now more in accordance with the parent Act and, what is most important, carries out the intention of the House. I heartily support it on behalf of my hon. Friends.

EUROPEAN MIGRATION (INTERGOVERNMENTAL COMMITTEE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Major Conant.]

11.27 p.m.

Mr. Ian Winterbottom: I rise tonight to urge the Government to support the Inter-Governmental Committee for European Migration which, at the moment, Her Majesty's Government are ignoring and which is little known to almost any hon. Member of this House, or anybody outside. The only source of information about this organisation which it is easy to find is through the American Press; our own newspapers, due to limitation of newsprint, have little to say on the subject.
As an introduction, perhaps I should remind hon. Members that it is an offshoot of the International Refugee Organisation, which was wound up at the end of 1951, and which, during its 4½years of life, registered 1,619,000 displaced persons. It managed to move to their homes 1,209,000 of them, but when it was wound up, no fewer than 410,000 former displaced persons still remained


unsettled and still lived in camps in the Western Zones of Germany.
The I.R.O. had two successors. First, the High Commissioner for Refugees, who took over the legal and political protection of these 410,000 unfortunate people, and then one of those "alphabetical" organisations of which there are several today, the Provisional Inter-Governmental Committee for Migration in Europe, which took over the movement fleet and the movement organisation of the old I.R.O. That particular fleet, I would remind hon. Members, moved 840,000 persons overseas in 4½ years.
The I.R.O. was supported by the United States Government, as well as our own Government, but when the I.R.O. was wound up, our policy became divided. The United Kingdom Government put its money on the High Commission for Refugees, but the U.S. Government put a very much larger sum into the funds of the Provisional Inter-Governmental Committee. They intended this successor organisation to have a wider scope than had the movement organisation of the old I.R.O.
There were a series of conferences under the aegis of the I.L.O. in Geneva to study the whole question of migration from Western Europe and the political problems caused by surplus populations in Europe itself. Following these conferences, the new successor organisation was given the job not only of moving the hard core of refugees settled overseas but also of moving abroad the surplus populations of Western Europe. It started work in 1952 and in its first year of operation it had the quite considerable achievement of moving 77,000 of these people abroad. That organisation has struck roots and it has started on its second year of operation.
At its most recent annual conference a resolution was accepted changing its name into the Inter-Governmental Committee for European Migration. It ceased to be provisional and is now permanent. The programme this year is to move 120,000 people from Europe overseas. It has an administrative budget of 2,174,000 dollars and an operations budget of 34,600,000 dollars. Twenty-two nations are members of the Inter-Governmental Committee.
I said that 400,000 displaced persons remained when the I.R.O. was wound up, but we must not think that the problem was static at that point. The flow of refugees did not stop with the winding up of the I.R.O. They continued to flow, as hon. Members know, from Eastern Germany, from Czechoslovakia and other nations behind the Iron Curtain. As the tension in these countries rises, in my opinion the flow will increase. There is also a special American fund to reward individuals from behind the Iron Curtain Who are willing to risk the flight to the West. The bulk of these refugees have come into Western Germany. In all, since 1945 over 9 million expellees and refugees have come into Western Germany.
These men, who during a period of absolute control of our zones in the West were prevented from forming a political organisation, now have their own organisation and their own political party. In my opinion that political party will become an ever more important factor in the political life of Western Germany. These men are not, on the whole, rational beings. They are men who have lost everything. They are men filled with an irrational resentment of their lot. They will not behave as reasonable beings. In my opinion they are the most dangerous element in Western Germany today. They will be filled for our lifetime with a desire to return to their homelands, and irredentism is a very powerful political emotion.
That is the situation in Western Germany. The pressure of population caused by refugees is not the only dangerous factor in this field. Surplus populations anywhere build up a social pressure which can explode. There is the surplus population in Italy. Much nearer home and a direct responsibility of Her Majesty's Government are the surplus populations of Malta and Cyprus. Malta is a great problem. It is an island which can support a population of 250,000 and has now 315,000 people on it. In fact, when the actual funds available for reconstruction are finished in a year or two Malta will be in a desperate plight.
We are responsible for Malta. We have done a great deal to help her, but just pumping in funds alone will not solve her difficulties. I maintain that we are doing far too little to help these various


nations in Western Europe to overcome their problems. I know that the size of the problem is so great that it causes emotional exhaustion; millions of people cease to mean anything. But the hard fact is that they are a great social and political problem.
I have raised this matter in Question time, and the Minister of State, in reply to a Question of mine, asking what we were doing to assist Western Germany in dealing with the problem of refugees, said that Her Majesty's Government are considering what part they can play in any practical measures, in common action, to help with this problem. As far as I can see from replies to other Questions, I think they are still considering what they can do. I am afraid that consideration is not enough. I do not want to read the Under-Secretary a lecture on the political situation, because he is better informed than I am, but he will agree, I think, that the situation in Italy, Germany and elsewhere is dangerous.
Can anything be done to help these nations? I maintain that it can. If we are able to transfer a proportion of this population to other parts of the world where the population which is at present there is too small to develop the existing resources—for instance, Australia, Canada and South America—we can go some way to reducing the population pressures in Western Europe and at the same time give to these other empty nations that population which they wish to have. The two problems are complementary. If we can solve one, we can solve the other.
I know that there are widely differing views upon the desirability of large-scale migration from this country, but I am not going to raise that point here this evening. I know, too, that there are very great problems about settling large numbers of people in the receiving countries. But one of the facts of the situation is that the Governments of Canada and Australia both realise that they cannot receive all the British nationals that they would like to have, for various reasons, and that the British nationals that they can have do not satisfy their needs. For this reason they are turning towards this new organisation, the Inter-Governmental Committee for European Migration, to help them to recruit a good type of

worker for settlement in their countries. I think an indication of the importance that Australia places upon this new organisation is the fact that her delegation to the Inter-Governmental Committee this year is led by Sir Douglas Copeland, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Australia, a very distinguished man.
I think that if the Under-Secretary will consult his colleagues at the Commonwealth Relations Office he will find that the Australian Government would welcome the presence of a British delegation on the Inter-Governmental Committee for European Migration. They feel that our presence there would support them in their work and would certainly enable the Commonwealth to act in concert in that field. Canada has done more than simply consider what can be done to help Western Germany to overcome her refugee problem. She has, in fact, already modified her immigration laws to take a greater proportion of East German refugees. The Under-Secretary will have noted that one of the points that resulted from Dr. Adenauer's visit to Canada was the expressed willingness of the Canadian Government to take a larger proportion of German refugees.
There is also one other point worth noting. The German Government itself is looking towards migration as one of the means to help herself and her refugee problem. The German Government has laid down priorities in the movement of people from Western Germany, and among priorities the movement of farmers and their families stands very high. Large numbers of East Prussian farmers have moved into West Germany, where they are employed on menial work. They are not able to follow their trade. And the West German Government realises that these men will become dangerous unless they are moved elsewhere. I hope the Under-Secretary will agree that these men will be far better employed producing food, rather than doing menial work among the rubble, and nursing their resentments.
I speak in the main from the Commonwealth angle, but in fact South America is also anxious to take large numbers of people from Western Europe, particularly Italians, and they too are turning


towards the Inter-Governmental Committee for European Migration to assist them.
Now, here are two problems which, as I have said, are complementary, and machinery here exists which can help to mitigate both. It is far too much to say that the Committee will solve these problems, but it may reduce them to manageable proportions—and that, I think, is all we can hope to do.
Now, I should be very glad if the Under-Secretary, in his reply, would say why Her Majesty's Government seems to be unable to support this organisation. If we contribute to the administrative budget, not the operational budget—it is carried in the main by the United States—we can become members of that organisation. The United States pays one-third of the administrative budget, Canada pays 9 per cent., and Australia 6|. Now let us assume that the United Kingdom only pays one-half of the American contribution—I should say that is a fairly safe guess as to the size of our contribution—in that case we will carry one-sixth of the administrative budget, which would be of the order of £120,000 a year—not a very great sum.
Cannot we afford this sum? Let us leave on one side our duty to Cyprus, to Malta, our interest in a stable Europe, our interest in a strong Australia and Canada. Surely, bringing the thing down to the very lowest level, we would, by participating in this organisation, be able to earn a significant sum in hard currency by acting as one of the most important agents of the Committee who are moving these people around the world. There is already one oddity in their movement organisation. One steamer in Sydney is making four trips from the United Kingdom this summer with migrants from the United Kingdom to Canada.
I think the Under-Secretary and the House will agree that the moral reasons are the real ones in this case. I think it is important that we should not, as it were, dissociate ourselves from the problems of Western Europe. We must not sit smugly behind the Channel, as we have done for many centuries. We must be seen to care about their problems, but in a sense of solidarity with them. And

I think one of the ways in which we can seek to care about their problems, by which we can show we are doing something to assist them to overcome problems far greater than any we have here, is to become a member of this organisation. I do urge the Under-Secretary tonight, even if his reply has to be somewhat guarded, to try and persuade his colleagues to bring Her Majesty's Government to support this important and developing organisation.

11.44 p.m.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: I want, if I may, to support very warmly what my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, Central (Mr. Ian Winter-bottom) has said. My personal experience of refugee and migration work goes back to 1921, when Dr. Nansen was appointed High Commissioner of the League of Nations to deal with this problem. I worked for him, and know what he did for refugees in Europe, settling 1½million Greek refugees who came out of Asia Minor and Eastern Thrace, and later in his work for the Armenians and others.
After the second war I had to represent His Majesty's Government in U.N.R.R.A. and I had to help in the establishment of I.R.O. That experience has left me with the profound conviction that there is no human misery like that of the refugee. It has left me with the conviction that there is no waste of human life and human skill so great as that involved in leaving refugees without a new life and a new home. On that ground alone I support my hon. Friend's plea that Her Majesty's Government should become a member of I.C.E.M. I believe it is in our interest on every ground to do so. It is our interest that the work of I.C.E.M. should continue and expand.
These refugees tend to contain a very high proportion of what are sometimes called intellectuals—trained technicians, doctors, professors and others. Einstein was a refugee. They often render great service to the countries to which they go.
Every person who is unemployed in Europe and who is moved across from Europe to the other side of the Atlantic helps to close the dollar gap. If we allow £100 per annum per head spent in Europe in keeping the refugee alive—which is a low enough rate of subsistence—and if


I.C.E.M. can move 120,000 refugees a year, that is £12 million a year on Europe's dollar balance—not a negligible item. As my hon. Friend said, many of these people are agriculturists who are going under arrangements made by I.C.E.M. to increase food production on the other side of the Atlantic.
My hon. Friend said that every refugee who is taken from Germany and Italy and given a new life overseas helps to relieve a strain and tension in those countries which could become very serious and which, if there were a world unemployment crisis, might be explosive material of the most dangerous kind. My hon. Friend showed conclusively the political importance of this work. What I.C.E.M. is doing is a real safety valve—and it is on a very considerable scale. On 30th April the 45,000th refugee passed through the Bremen centre to go to Canada and on that day 2,200 Germans left Bremen for Canada.
I.C.E.M. is opening new perspectives on the other side of the Atlantic. In co-operation with I.C.E.M., the Argentine has a five-year plan for colonisation in which 600,000 acres are to be reserved and developed for European settlers. Colombia is opening the valley of the Rio Magdalena. Brazil has told I.C.E.M. that she is starting next year a 45 million dollar programme of colonisation. Venezuela has a large-scale colonisation plan, for which she needs international help. I.C.E.M. is not only opening new perspectives; it is also establishing for the first time a real international control of migration, which means that the migrant will have a guarantee of a fair deal as he never had in times gone by. With the joint co-operation of the International Bank and other agencies, the perspective for the settler is far better than anything that has ever existed before.
I beg the Government to think of both our short-term and our long-term interest in this matter. We went into U.N.R.R.A. It cost us £170 million, but in return we got £2,000 million worth of reconstruction which served British interests in every quarter of the globe and which led on to Marshall aid. Let us recognise that an investment in this I.C.E.M. work may in the long run give the same kind of return.

11.50 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Nutting): May I say at the outset that I fully share the views expressed by the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Noel-Baker), and the hon. Member for Nottingham, Central (Mr. Ian Winterbottom), about the tragedy and the urgency of the refugee problem in the international sphere. This adjournment debate, however, is too short for me to give any adequate reply to a case of this kind, but I will deal with the points which have been raised.
The hon. Member who raised this adjournment debate, divided his argument into two sorts. There was the argument of self-interest and the argument of altruism. Regarding the argument of self-interest, the hon. Gentleman said that we should be able to recoup a great deal of the money we would be investing in this organisation by providing the wherewithal for transporting these refugees to their places of resettlement overseas. I do not agree with him there. If we were to be a member of I.C.E.M., we should not get preferential treatment. We should hold no special privileged position as the shipping nation, nor is any preferential treatment given under the Charter of the Organisation for the shipping of member States. Therefore, we are in no worse position to earn dollars or foreign currency for transporting these refugees if we remain outside the organisation.
Concerning migration, we have reluctantly had to make a cut from £500,000 to £150,000 in our grant to the Australian Assisted Passages Scheme. It might seem to some people, particularly to the Australians, invidious that we should launch into a scheme for transporting non-British migrants from Europe, the bulk of the migrants from Europe being non-British, before we restored, at least, some of the cut we have had to make in this Australian Assisted Passages Scheme. I should have thought, although I cannot speak for the Australian Government, that they would prefer some of the cut to be restored.
The real answer, and this deals with the hon. Member's altruistic point, seems to be this. The I.C.E.M. does not, under its present Charter, resettle refugees. It


only moves and transports them. As I see it, the real problem in the whole refugee question is the matter of resettlement. For those who cannot resettle in Europe, some place outside must be found. The I.C.E.M. does not find it and it is because of the difficulties of resettling in other countries that there is, at the moment, no great queue of people waiting for movement to countries outside Europe, so far as my information goes.
By joining this organisation, we should not necessarily be helping to find means and places of resettlement. This country cannot find these means and places of resettlement. It is for other countries to do so, but, owing to political and economic conditions, this problem has not yet been solved. The problem of resettlement is the one which has to be solved. It is not primarily one of transportation. Nor, I claim, does our non-membership of I.C.E.M. necessarily cripple or embarrass that organisation financially for, indeed, it has a carry-over, in its administrative budget, of some 218,000 dollars from 1952 to 1953.
It may seem that our policy is rather coldly practical, but I do not think that anyone can seriously accuse the Government or their predecessors of any meanness in this or any other field. We supported U.N.R.R.A. to the tune of £153 million; we have supported the I.R.O., one of the predecessors of this organisation, to the tune of £21¾ million; U.N.I.C.E.F. to the tune of £350,000; the relief and works agency for Palestine refugees to the tune of £9½ million; U.N.K.R.A. in Korea with £3 million.

At the same time we support N.A.T.O., O.E.E.C., the I.L.O., and the Council of Europe, all of which play a part in this story.
The hon. Member may say this is a paltry economy, but, of course, every economy can be so attacked, and if all the small economies the Government have had to make, some of them reluctantly, had not been made then Government expenditure, with rising costs, would have gone rocketing up. The position is regrettable, but we cannot, in our present financial circumstances, afford to contribute to this organisation. We have to scrutinise all the demands on our resources with the greatest care. Nevertheless, the points made tonight, with which I have great sympathy, will be kept fully in mind, and the Government's decision not to join this organisation is in no sense irrevocable. We hope circumstances, and in particular the financial position of this country, may change, and we hope that, if it does, we may be able to play a part and to make a contribution to the success of an organisation for which we have much respect and which we acknowledge is doing a good, valuable job of work in this important field.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Only the hon. Gentleman's concluding sentences were of any comfort to us, and I hope we may have an opportunity of raising the matter again at a very early date.

Adjourned accordingly at Four Minutes to Twelve o'Clock.